This is a petition seeking to review a proceeding by the grievance committee of the State Bar before the Board of Commissioners of the State Bar to disbar petitioner from the practice of law in Alabama. The Board found the petitioner guilty of the charges and he was suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years.
Petitioner was charged with the violation of Rules 27 and 36 of Section A of the Amended Rules governing the conduct of attorneys in Alabama, lised in 239 Ala. XXIII, et seq., which provide in pertinent part:
The Board of Commissioners concluded their resolution adjudging the petitioner guilty of the charges with this sentence: "At the end of the said two (2) year period, he shall be deemed reinstated as a member in good standing of the Bar of this State."
In view of petitioner's suspended status, we have exercised our prerogative and refrained from setting out the evidence in full. Tit. 13, § 66, Code 1940. It is sufficient to say that after careful and considerate study, we conclude there was substantial evidence introduced to sustain the charges, thereby warranting the decision of the Board. In re Stuart, 257 Ala. 184, 57 So.2d 874.
Admittedly, the decision here is not easy. The client was faced with delinquent assessments for Social Security Withholding Tax, Federal Unemployment Tax and Income Tax which had been withheld from his employees. These assessments amounted to over $1200. The client turned over $700 to petitioner purportedly to be paid on these assessments. Petitioner paid $97.70 on one assessment, reimbursed himself with $123.62 which he claimed as advances to his client and pocketed the remaining $478.68 as attorney's fees.
Petitioner testified that he thought this was in accord with the agreement; the client's wife and his father-in-law, who together delivered the money to petitioner, and the client all testified that the entire $700 was to be delivered to the Internal Revenue Service to apply on the assessments. The client's father-in-law testified that he told petitioner to write on the receipt that it was "for Income Tax" but that petitioner said, "Oh, that makes no difference.
Attorneys for petitioner on this appeal did not represent petitioner before the Board of Commissioners.
LIVINGSTON, C. J., and SIMPSON, GOODWYN, COLEMAN and HARWOOD, JJ., concur.