Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
In Re the Disciplinary Proceedings Against Molthan
Citations: 327 P.2d 427; 52 Wash. 2d 560; 1958 Wash. LEXIS 409Docket: C. D. 2237
Court: Washington Supreme Court; July 3, 1958; Washington; State Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of Washington reviewed the disciplinary proceedings against attorney James J. Molthan, who faced disbarment following his conviction for willfully failing to file a Federal income tax return for 1951. Molthan pleaded nolo contendere in federal court, resulting in a six-month imprisonment and a $500 fine. The Washington State Bar Association presented two complaints: his conviction and his failure to file tax returns for 1949, 1950, and 1951, as well as unpaid taxes for those years and beyond. The trial committee confirmed his conviction and noted that Molthan had filed a form disclosing $21,000 in income for 1951 but did not file a tax return or pay taxes. Although he filed returns for 1952-1955, he only paid taxes for 1955. Notably, he had communicated with the Treasury Department, stating his refusal to file returns and pay taxes, claiming his status as a "second class citizen" hindered his ability to work as an attorney due to a designation as a security risk without trial. The trial committee, while acknowledging his misconduct, recommended against disbarment due to the absence of moral turpitude, suggesting instead a reprimand. They characterized his behavior as lacking good judgment and indicative of an immature attitude, which should be noted in the event of future complaints. The committee found no evidence of corrupt intent or deceit in Molthan's actions, emphasizing his transparency with tax authorities and adequate record-keeping. The trial committee concluded that Mr. Molthan's actions did not constitute moral turpitude, contrasting with cases like In re Seijas and In re Kindschi, where tax fraud was deemed morally reprehensible due to willful evasion of taxes. The court emphasized that disciplinary actions against attorneys, which can include reprimand, suspension, or disbarment, depend on the court's discretion, requiring careful consideration to avoid abuse. The court noted the diversity of opinions in similar cases, highlighting a previous case where disbarment occurred due to fraudulent intent, which was not present in Mr. Molthan's case. The court referred to other cases with varying disciplinary outcomes, indicating that Mr. Molthan's conduct lacked evidence of intentional wrongdoing or corrupt motive. Ultimately, the court decided that a reprimand, as recommended by the trial committee, was appropriate rather than disbarment, finding that this approach best served justice. The case is remanded to the board of governors for a reprimand in line with the trial committee's recommendation.