ATTORNEY AND CLIENT--STRIKING ATTORNEY FROM ROLL OF FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT

Authors

Richard J. Archer, University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow

Abstract

For twelve years gambling had been carried on in a wide open manner in the district; more than three thousand hand books on race horses were operated in cafes, restaurants, and night clubs. Newspapers had published the names of those paying the federal taxes, and a poll of school children indicated that they were familiar with gambling devices in the community. Responsibility for law enforcement rested with the Commonwealth's Attorney, an elective official who had held the position for twenty years; an attempt to remove him from office by quo warranto proceedings, and an attempt to investigate the situation by grand jury had failed. A group of ministers and other residents filed a formal complaint alleging that by allowing these open violations of the gambling laws, the Commonwealth's Attorney had become unfit to be an attorney at law, and asking the issuance of a rule to show cause why the attorney should not be stricken from the rolls of the federal district court. Rule issued and after hearing, held, an order striking the attorney from the roll should be entered. Wilbur v. Howard, (D.C. Ky. 1947) 70 F. Supp. 930.

Recommended Citation

Richard J. Archer, ATTORNEY AND CLIENT--STRIKING ATTORNEY FROM ROLL OF FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, 46 Mich. L. Rev. 95 (1947).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol46/iss1/10