In re O'Keefe
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
On October 7, 1918, petitioner R. E. O’Keefe was disbarred [1] from the practice of law in this state. ( 55 Mont. 200 , 175 Pac. 593 .) He has petitioned for reinstatement, and a careful investigation and review of his case has been made by us so as to avoid any possible injustice. The attorney general was directed to make full investigation and report as to protests against petitioner’s reinstatement, and his moral fitness to practice law, which has been done, and a complete report made and filed herein by the attorney general. We have *535 given the petitioner every consideration, realizing Ms sad plight, and that to this court alone may he appeal for relief. Our disposition is forgiving, but we have a solemn duty to the profession and the public, which must be performed without regard to feelings of sympathy. The petitioner has been given every opportunity.
Once before he was up for disbarment ( 49 Mont. 369 , L. R. A. 1915A, 514, 142 Pac. 638 ), and in that instance this court dealt most leniently with him, suspending him from practice for thirty days for an offense justifying his disbarment. We do not believe he “is possessed of the moral conceptions requisite for the practice of law, and his petition is therefore denied.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.