holding disbarment is an appropriate remedy for false swearing
How later courts described this case
- holding disbarment is an appropriate remedy for false swearing
- filing sworn pleading known to be false
- disbarment for false swearing; “[D]ishonesty on the part of an attorney establishes his unfitness to continue practicing law.”
- purpose of disciplinary system is to protect the public, the profession, and the courts
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ROBERTS, Justice,
dissenting.
In April of 1979, when this Court was presented with respondent’s record, former Chief Justice Eagen and I took a minority view and agreed with the recommendation of the Disciplinary Board that this Court should have suspended respondent for a period of six months, and should not have entered a mere public censure. Although this Court is now presented with additional, substantiated charges of serious misconduct by respondent, including a falsely sworn application for a driver’s license, there is, in light of the majority’s previous public censure, no basis in “fairness for disbarment. The charges now before us all pre-date this Court’s public censure. There is no evidence that, since this censure, *203 respondent has engaged in any improper conduct. On this record, I would agree with the Disciplinary Board that suspension, and not disbarment, is the appropriate penalty. In view of the seriousness of the present charges, however, I would suspend respondent for a period of three years, rather than one year as recommended by the Board.
O’BRIEN, C. J., joins this dissenting opinion.