In Re Wilson

Citations: 258 P.2d 433; 76 Ariz. 49; 1953 Ariz. LEXIS 128Docket: 5741

Court: Arizona Supreme Court; June 8, 1953; Arizona; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Bryce H. Wilson, Jr., an attorney and former County Attorney of Pima County, was cited for unprofessional conduct on April 14, 1952, facing seven charges before the Local Administrative Committee in Tucson. Hearings commenced under amended Supreme Court rules, with Wilson attending the primary hearing on June 14, 1952. Evidence presented included a partial transcript from Wilson's prior criminal trials, audio recordings of conversations with Dolores Raines, compromising photographs, testimony from a deputy county attorney, Wilson's own testimony, and affidavits submitted by him.

The Administrative Committee found Wilson had engaged in unprofessional conduct between January 1949 and January 1951, particularly noting his relationship with Raines, a known prostitute. Key findings included that Wilson had associated with Raines outside of his official duties and had accepted at least $50 from her in exchange for protection from prosecution, fully aware of her prostitution activities. The Committee recommended disbarment, and the complete record was forwarded to the Board of Governors of the State Bar of Arizona. Wilson did not appear before the Board but submitted a Statement of Opposition without additional evidence. The Board endorsed the Committee's recommendation for disbarment. The case was subsequently argued before the Supreme Court of Arizona, which allowed both parties to submit briefs for final determination. No procedural issues concerning the Committee or Board processes were raised, except for the admissibility of certain evidence.

Both bodies adhered to the established procedural rules, ensuring the respondent had sufficient opportunity for defense. The respondent raised several objections regarding the evidence, claiming: 1) the partial reporter's transcript lacked a proper foundation; 2) the sound tapes and their transcription were not properly identified; 3) the recordings were not originals or the best evidence; and 4) the pictures were inflammatory and lacked probative value. The foundation for the evidence was established through testimony from the deputy county attorney, who confirmed the accuracy of the transcript and identified the voices and likenesses in the recordings and pictures.

In the context of legal practice, the right to practice law is a privilege contingent upon demonstrating intellectual and moral fitness. Unlike typical criminal or civil proceedings, the focus in disbarment cases is on public welfare rather than individual punishment. The integrity of the legal profession and public safety take precedence over strict evidentiary rules. The court's rules allow for the admission of evidence deemed to have probative value, facilitating a balance between due process and practical investigation without adhering rigidly to court evidence standards. The respondent was afforded a full opportunity to confront and cross-examine witnesses during the related criminal proceedings, and the established identification and foundation for the evidence met the necessary criteria for admissibility.

All evidence objected to is deemed properly before the court. In disciplinary proceedings against attorneys for professional misconduct, the court acts as the trier of fact and law, requiring that evidence be clear and convincing to impose penalties, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. After a thorough review of the record, the court finds substantial support for prior findings of misconduct. The respondent's alleged "frame-up" defense is undermined by his failure to contest incriminating photographs and his admission of the voices on recordings, despite claiming edits were made. The respondent acknowledged receiving $50 from Dolores Raines, a known prostitute, but insisted it was for legal services, contradicting the conclusion that it was protection money. The court asserts that a prosecuting attorney's misconduct, particularly involving corruption and moral violations, warrants disbarment to maintain public trust in the legal system. Consequently, Bryce H. Wilson, Jr. is disbarred from practicing law in Arizona.