IN RE DISBARMENT OF WILLIAM BAUER

Minnesota Supreme Court1926-05-28No. No. 24,804

167 Minn. 350

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court disbarred William Bauer from the practice of law, finding that his admission under a false name, combined with multiple instances of professional misconduct including misappropriation of client funds, contempt of court, and bad faith dealings with clients, rendered him unfit to remain a member of the bar.

William Bauer (whose true name was Edward Warszawski) was admitted to the Minnesota bar in 1922 under a false name. He had assumed the name "William Bauer" after fleeing Winnipeg in 1914 to escape a grand larceny warrant, and he falsely represented this assumed name as his true name in his bar admission petition. Beyond this initial misrepresentation, Bauer engaged in multiple instances of professional misconduct as an attorney, including filing a second divorce action in contempt of court after the first had been dismissed with prejudice, misappropriating client funds through false representations in divorce matters totaling over $225, and retaining bail money obtained through materially false statements. In one bail matter, he claimed $200 in attorney's fees for services that would have been worth no more than $150 and failed to provide any accounting to the client.

The trial judge's findings established a pattern of dishonesty, bad faith, and breach of fiduciary duty. Bauer made no proper accounting for the funds he received from clients and demonstrated a disregard for court orders and client interests. The court determined that his conduct demonstrated unfitness for bar membership.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether an applicant's use of an assumed name in a bar admission petition constitutes fraudulent misrepresentation
Whether an attorney's filing of a second divorce action in violation of a prior dismissal order constitutes contempt
Whether an attorney's receipt of client funds under false pretenses and failure to account for them constitutes conversion
Whether multiple instances of misconduct warrant disbarment

Procedural posture

This was a disbarment proceeding before the court, with evidence heard by a district court judge whose findings of fact were reviewed on appeal.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Per Curiam.

This is a proceeding for the disbarment of a member of the bar of this court. The evidence was taken before Honorable Olin B. Lewis, presiding judge of the district court for Ramsey county, whose findings of fact are well supported by the evidence. There is no occasion for us to do more than summarize them.

Respondent was admitted to the bar of this state March 23, 1922. His true name is Edward WarszawsM and he went by no other until early in 1914 when he left Winnipeg and came to Minnesota, taking up his residence at St. Paul under the name of William Bauer. The occasion for his leaving Winnipeg and for his change of name appears to have been the issueof a warrant by the police court of Winnipeg for his arrest upon a charge of grand larceny. It was under the name of William Bauer that respondent was admitted to our bar and his representation in his petition for his admission that that was his true name was false.

The next charge found true has to do with a divorce action in which respondent participated as attorney in 1924. He represented the plaintiff and after trial the action was dismissed with prejudice. Notwithstanding that dismissal and within three months, without any new cause for divorce, respondent wrongfully instituted a second action on behalf of the same client. That conduct on the part of respondent was properly found to have been not only a contempt of the district court, but also “intentional and wilful” and in deliberate disregard of the decree in the first case.

Another charge found true is that respondent resorted to false representations and was guilty of bad faith in procuring some $225 to be advanced by his client in another divorce action and that even after that money had been received he “negligently and wrongfully” failed to protect the interests of his client and failed to secure for her the property on account of which the money had been advanced. He has made no accounting in the premises and the case is mildly characterized as one of conversion by an attorney of the funds of his client. There are two other items of similar character; one involving about $16 and another $50. It is unnecessary to go into the evidence concerning them.

From another client respondent procured $500 in cash to be used as bail. It was procured and retained by resort to representations which were materially false. Respondent has never given his client a statement of account in this matter but has refunded $300 and claims that the balance of $200 is due for attorney’s fees. The finding is that if the services had been rendered in good faith, which obviously they were not, they would have been worth not to exceed $150.

The foregoing makes it clear that respondent should not be retained as a member of the bar. He has demonstrated unfitness for that honor and for the responsibilities which attend it. In view of the circumstances under which he came to Minnesota, the misrepresentation concerning his name which was a part of his petition for admission to the bar of this court, probably makes a case for the vacation of the order for respondent’s admission. However innocent a change of name, it is incumbent upon an applicant for admission to the bar to state Ms true name and not a recently assumed one alone. Otherwise the preliminary investigation of an applicant by the Board of Law Examiners can be easily hindered if not in effect prevented. But on the whole case, judgment of disbarment is required and will be entered forthwith.

So ordered.