Legal Opinion

In Re French

Hawaii Supreme Court

Decided November 18, 1924No. 1563Published

1Dissent

OPINION OP

2Concurring in part, dissenting in partPeters, C. J.

The respondent is unquestionably guilty of perpetrating a gross fraud which merits disbarment. My difficulty is in determining what it should be — absolute disbarment or suspension for a fixed period. Disbarment “may be absolute, leaving the party to apply to the court for readmission if his offense was of such, a hind that, after the lapse of time, he can satisfy the court that he has become trustworthy; or for a stated time, if the court is of opinion that the interests of the public avLII thereby be sufficiently protected.” Bar Association v. Greenhood, 46 N. E. (Mass.) 568, 574.…

3Cases cited5 opinions

  1. In re HumphreysHawaii Supreme Court · 1903
  2. In re BevinsHawaii Supreme Court · 1922
  3. In re DavisHawaii Supreme Court · 1903
  4. In re KeliikoaHawaii Supreme Court · 1885
  5. In re PaakikiHawaii Supreme Court · 1892

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API