Morris Lavine is a member of the State Bar of California and of the Bar of this Court. He was first admitted to practice in this Court on October 26, 1918, was disbarred on August 10, 1932, and was reinstated on March 21,1936.

His appearances over the years in many causes here have made known to the Judges of this Court his methods and practices in the conduct of litigation, as well as his ability and industry. ^He is, in short, one of the older and more experienced members of the Bar of this Court.

On the afternoon of Monday, July 26, 1954, Mr. Lavine commenced in this Court a bankruptcy proceeding entitled “In the Matter of The Los Angeles County Pioneer Society, a corporation, Debt- or”, and numbered “In Bankruptcy No. 62149 WM”.

As attorney for the Pioneer Society, Mr. Lavine at that time filed and presented to this Court a “Debtor’s Petition under Title XI, § 322 for Plan of Arrangement”, previously prepared by him, which represented to this Court inter alia:

With this “Debtor’s Petition” Mr. Lavine also signed and filed a “Petition for Order Extending Time to File Debt- or’s Schedules, Statement of Affairs and List of Executory Contracts” wherein the Pioneer Society “respectfully represents' and shows” that it “is desirous of expediting '' *•■'* ' the' Debtor Proceedings herein for the purpose of placing its assets in the custody of the Federal Court to enable the debtor to meet its obligations prior to a threatened order of dissolution which is being threatened by the State Court of California to be put into effect on July 27, 1954 [the following day], and' to stay the State Court’s proposed action’ * * * [and] does not have sufficient time within which to get up schedules in bankruptcy, the statement of affairs in bankruptcy, and a statement of the executory contracts * * [Italics added.]

At the same time Mr. Lavine also signed and filed a “Petition for Order to Show Cause Restraining Proceedings in the Superior Court * * * ”, wherein the Pioneer Society represents that it is “a party in a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles, being No. 562960, entitled ‘In the Matter of Los Angeles County Pioneer Society, a Corporation, In the Process of Voluntary Winding Up’, wherein in a voluntary proceeding to wind up its affairs the Los Angeles County Pionéer Society revoked the said proceeding and petitioned the court for revocation of its previous proceedings to voluntarily wind up its affairs and to allow it to continue, and to allow it to be restored 'to its funds and meet its obligations." '* * *

“That the said Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles has announced that it will not permit the Los Angeles County Pioneer Society so to do, and will, on July 27th, 1954, at the hour bf 10:00 a. m., dissolve the Society on application of Edmund Sumner, Deputy Attorney General, and the Historical Society which claims to have an interest iñ ”the trust funds.

“That great and irreparable damage will be done to the debtor unless there is a stay of the proceedings. That no harm can come from a stay for the reason that all of the funds claimed by the debtor are at the present time ■ in the possession of the Historical Society, as trustee * * *. That the said funds consist of approximately $95,000 in cash, which the Historical Society has reported is invested in stocks and bonds, and the said funds have been so invested for several months according to the report filed in the Superior Court.

“That this proceeding and this petition is being taken in the best interest of the creditors and the debtor and for the preservation and protection of the assets of the debtor and to prevent untimely inroads therein.” [Italics added.]

Upon the representations set forth in these petitions, Mr. Lavine induced this Court to issue an “Order to Show Cause”, prepared by Mr. Lavine, in material part as follows':

Upon the representations set forth in the petitions prepared and signed by him as attorney, Mr. Lavine induced this Court to assert its paramount jurisdiction in bankruptcy and issue an injunction, also prepared by him, restraining the State Court as follows:

Mr. Lavine also prepared and likewise induced this Court to issue an injunction directed to the Historical Society ás follows:

He also prepared and likewise induced issuance of a third injunction addressed “To The Farmers & Merchants National Bank * * *, as Custodian of the Funds and Securities of the * * * Pioneer Society, which are held by the Historical Society * * * as Trustee”, restraining disposition of such funds and securities.

On the following day, July 27, 1954, Edmund Sumner, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General of California, and Oscar Lawler, Esquire, attorney for the Historical Society, appeared ex parte and asked to be heard on motions to vacate all the orders. The calendar did not permit a hearing that day. However these attorneys then gave the Court a citation to In re Los Angeles County Pioneer Society, 40 Cal.2d 852 , 257 P.2d 1 .

■ Thereafter this Court on its own motion ordered a hearing to be held on Wednesday afternoon, July 28, at which time the Deputy Attorney General of California, the attorney for the Historical Society and Mr. Lavine appeared.

Inquiry was then made of Mr. La-vine as to the indebtedness of the Pioneer Society. The creditors were then disclosed by him for the first time as follows:

(1) Claim of one Mason for typing .............. $ 3.50

(2) Claim of a florist for flowers............. 6.21

(3) Claim of the President of the Pioneer Society for postage and photostatic copies of papers ............... 11.00

(4) Claim of a surety company for premium on a bond ............. 13.50

(5) Claim of Finkel & Finkel, accountants...... 380.00 and

(6) Claim of Morris Lavine, for attorney’s fees and expenses ........... 13,000.00

Further inquiry developed that all of these claims had previously been presented to the State Court in the dissolution proceedings and had been by the .State Court disallowed. But the petitions prepared by Mr. Lavine and filed in this Court do not disclose these facts.

The Wednesday afternoon hearing was recessed until Friday morning, July 30, when the three attorneys named again appeared. Meantime this Court had the opportunity to study the petitions and orders in the bankruptcy proceedings in the light of the earlier State Court proceedings involving the Pioneer Society. From the records presented on Wednesday by the Deputy Attorney General of California and counsel for the Historical Society and from a study of the opinion of the Supreme Court of California in the Pioneer Society case, 40 Cal.2d 852 , 257 P.2d 1 , this Court learned, among others, the following facts:

(a) In the language of Justice Tray-nor: “On May 19, 1950, the court entered judgment that Pioneer was a charitable corporation, that its assets were dedicated to charitable purposes, that .it had abandoned its trust and was threatening to divert the assets to the private benefit of its members, and that appointment of a new trustee was necessary. * * * On October 18, 1950, after a further hearing, the court appointed Historical trustee and ordered the impounded assets turned over to it. The present appeals are from this order.” 257 P.2d at page 4 .

(b) “The next question to be determined is whether the trial court was justified in appointing a successor trustee. * * * As previously pointed out, substantial evidence supports the find ing of the trial court that Pioneer held its assets for charitable purposes.” [Ibid.]

(c) “Pioneer contends that Historical is not qualified to aet as trustee of the assets. Even if it is assumed that this question can be raised by Pioneer * * * the selection of Historical as trustee is supported by the record. Historical is a charitable corporation first organized in 1883 and incorporated in 1891. It has 492 members and is actively engaged in collecting and preserving material of historic interest in Southern California. The order appointing Historical trustee provides that it shall hold the transferred assets as trustee for the same purposes as those expressed in Pioneer’s articles. If Historical does not faithfully perform its duty as trustee, the Attorney General will institute appropriate proceedings to correct the noncompliance.” Id. at pages 9-10. “The order is affirmed.” Id. at page 10.

This opinion of the Supreme Court of California affirming the Superior Court’s 1950 order appointing the Historical Society as successor trustee of all the assets of the Pioneer Society was filed May 5, 1953.

The Pioneer Society’s petition for a rehearing was denied on May 28, 1953. Justice Carter dissenting said: “A majority of this Court has declared that Pioneer is a charitable organization and that it may not be permitted to correct its so-called deviation from its articles of incorporation; that its assets must be turned over to a successor trustee— the Historical Society. * * * Even if Pioneer is a charitable organization * * * it has the right to abandon its dissolution proceedings and correct any deviation from its articles of incorporation. To refuse to permit such corrective action is, in my opinion, to deprive Pioneer of its property without due process of law under both the federal and state constitutions.” Id. at page 15; italics added.

Justice Schauer also dissented, asserting that the 1953 decision of the Supreme Court “punishes Pioneer for instituting the lawful dissolution proceeding by stripping it of its assets and giving them to another; * * * refuses even to permit Pioneer * * * to discontinue the dissolution proceeding and to carry out the trust which the court adjudges to exist.” Ibid.; italics added.

(d) Throughout the appeal in the State Supreme Court Mr. Lavine was the attorney for the Pioneer Society. An appeal later taken by Mr. Lavine on behalf of the Pioneer Society to the Supreme Court of the United States was dismissed on November 16, 1953. See Los Angeles County Pioneer Society v. Historical Society of Southern Cal., 1953, 346 U.S. 888 , 74 S.Ct. 139 .

The Canons of Professional Ethics have long provided: “In the judicial forum the client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is authorized by the law of the land, and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense. But it is steadfastly to be borne in mind that the great trust of the lawyer is to be performed within and not without the bounds of the law. The office of attorney does not permit, much less does" it demand of him for any client, violation of law or any manner of fraud or chicane”. Canon 15, 62 A.B.A.Rep. 1110-1111 (1937).

“The conduct of the lawyer before the Court and with other lawyers should be characterized by candor and fairness. * * * It is unprofessional and dishonorable to deal other than candidly with the facts * * * in drawing affidavits and other documents, and in the presentation of causes.” Canon 22, Id. at 1112-1113. “Stirring up strife and litigation is not only unprofessional but it is indictable at common law. It is disreputable to hunt up * * * causes of action * * * in order to be employed to bring suit. * * * A duty to the public and to the profession devolves upon every member of the Bar having knowledge of such practices upon the part of any practioner, immediately to inform thereof to the end that the offender may be disbarred.” Canon 28, Id. at 1115.

“The lawyer must decline to conduct a civil cause * * * when convinced that it is intended merely to harass or to injure the opposite party or to work oppression or wrong.” Canon 30, Id. at 1116. “The responsibility for advising as to questionable transactions, for bringing questionable suits, for urging questionable defenses, is the lawyer’s responsibility. He cannot escape it by urging as an excuse that he is only following his client’s instructions.” Canon 31, Ibid.

For more than four generations it has been the express statutory duty of every attorney practicing in California “To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him such means only as aré consistent with truth, and never to seek"to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.” Calif.Bus. & Prof.Code § 6068(d), formerly Calif.Code Civ.Proc. § 282(4).

Moreover, for a like period it has been the law of California that “Every attorney is guilty of a misdemeanor who * * * is guilty of any deceit * * * or ^consents to any deceit * * * with intent to deceive the court * * Id. § 6128, formerly Calif.Penal Code, § 160.

Since 1938 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have provided that: “Every pleading * * * shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in his individual name, whose address shall be stated. * * * The signature of an attorney constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the pleading; that to the best of his knowledge, informatipn, and belief there is good ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for delay.” Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. Rule 11, 28 U.S.C.A. And since 1939, Rule 11 and other Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been applicable in proceedings under the Bankruptcy Act. See General Order 37, 11 U.S.C.A. following § 53.

Reading and rereading the petitions and orders submitted by Mr. Lavine in the light of the opinion of the Supreme Court of California in the Pioneer Society case, 1953, 40 Cal.2d 852 , 257 P.2d 1 , is reminiscent of the old pastime of “How Many Faces Can You Find in this Picture?” The more closely one looks the more faces he sees.

The chicane and deceit practiced by Mr. Lavine here is of two kinds — concealment and nondisclosure, and positive misrepresentation, varying in degree from clever half-truth to affirmative falsehood. Only a few specific instances will be noted here, since it is not worth the space required to mention all that have come to attention up to this writing.

Mr. Lavine affirmatively misrepresented to this Court, not once but throughout the petitions and orders he prepared in the bankruptcy proceedings here, that the Historical Society is “Trustee of funds turned over to it as Trustee for the * * * Pioneer Society.” (Italics added.)

In view of the admitted facts of record, concealed by Mr. Lavine from this Court in the bankrupety proceedings, it was premeditated audacity to set forth in the petition to this Court a “plan of arrangement” whereby it is solemnly proposed to satisfy the indebtedness of the Pioneer Society “100% out of the funds to be taken over by the [bankruptcy] trustee from the Historical Society. * * * The debtor proposes to obtain the money, which is in excess of $95,000 'from stocks and. bonds which the Historical Society has bought as trustee for the * * * Pioneer Society and which will be turned over to the trustee appointed by this court.”

In the “Debtor’s Petition” the status of the Pioneer Society is represented as being, not a public charitable trust, but merely a “non-profit organization.” The facts, as revealed in the opinion of the California Supreme Court, are these: “On May 19, 1950, the [trial] court entered judgment that Pioneer was a charitable corporation, that its assets were dedicated to [public] charitable purposes * * * [and] correctly determined that all of the assets of Pioneer were given and received for [public] charitable purposes and held by Pioneer for those purposes.” 257 P.2d at page 4 . Indeed it now appears that as early as 1921 the California courts had adjudged the Pioneer Society to be a charitable corporation. See In re Dol’s Estate (Los Angeles County Pioneer Society v. Flint et al., as Executors), 1921, 186 Cal. 64 , 198 P. 1039 . Mr. Lavine failed to disclose the facts as to either of these adjudications.

Apart from the affirmative misrepresentations, then, the petitions and orders presented by Mr. Lavine in the bankruptcy proceedings abound with practiced concealment. Nowhere is there to be found disclosure of (1) the fact that all the assets previously held by the Pioneer Society had been adjudged by the State Court in 1950 to constitute a public trust fund for charitable purposes; or (2) the fact that the State Court had rejected all claims asserted by Mr. Lavine and the Pioneer Society’s other alleged creditors against that trust fund; or (3) the fact that the Historical Society had been appointed successor trustee of all the Pioneer Society’s assets; or (4) the fact that the State-Court adjudication “stripping * * * [Pioneer] of its assets” and vesting in Historical as successor trustee all of Pioneer’s title thereto had occurred almost four years ago; or (5) the fact that the California Supreme Court more than a year ago affirmed the 1950 judgment taking from Pioneer all title to “its assets.”

As a famous lawyer observed more than a century ago: “Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive!” Sir Walter Scott, Marmion, VI (1808).

In stark contrast to the pleadings and orders he presented, Mr. Lavine’s “explanations” at the bar upon the two hearings before this Court were revealingly frank. Faced with the harsh alternative of claiming unbelievable ignorance, incompetence or inexperience, or of attempting to “bluff it through”, he chose the latter course. A few quotations from the reporter’s transcript will serve to indicate Mr. Lavine’s knowledge and state of mind:

What more need be said? What less could be said? Mr. Lavine could not deny the 1950 State-Court judgment. Neither could he deny knowledge of its finality or assert ignorance of its eifect.

Mr. Lavine was able through palpably groundless proceedings, in a few brief minutes to: (a) invoke the supervening bankruptcy jurisdiction of this Court, see Gross v. Irving Trust Co., 1933, 289 U.S. 342, 344-345 , 53 S.Ct. 605 , 77 L.Ed. 1243 ; (b) induce this Court, in the exercise of its paramount bankruptcy jurisdiction, summarily to enjoin the State Court from proceeding on the morrow in a matter which was of no concern to this Court; (c) induce this Court to issue a false and groundless order to show cause directing the State Court and others to appear and show cause “why disposition of those certain trust funds constituting the assets of the debtor estate herein * * * should not be permanently restrained;” (d) induce this Court to sign an order prepared by him summarily enjoining “the Historical Society, as the Trustee of funds turned over to it as Trustee for the * * * Pioneer Society,’’ from disposing of funds to which the Pioneer Society admittedly had no possible legal claim; and (e) induce this Court to sign an order of injunction prepared by him and addressed: “To the * ■ * * Bank * * * as custodian of the Funds of the Los Angeles County Pioneer Society • * * [Italics added.]

Three injunctions, two of them restraining the State Court, and all of them grounded upon nothing but the quicksands of incredibly callous chicane and deceit — writs de deceptione!

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that: “If a pleading * * * is signed with intent to defeat the purpose of this rule, it may be stricken as sham and false * * Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule 11, 28 U.S.C.A. The orders issued in the bankruptcy proceedings upon the pleadings signed by Mr. Lavine have been vacated, the pleadings have been stricken “as sham and false” within the meaning of Rule 11, and the proceedings have been dismissed sua sponte.

This Court now makes the finding that the petitions prepared by Mr. Lavine and filed in the bankruptcy proceedings on July 26, 1954, were prepared and signed and filed and presented to this Court by Morris Lavine in willful violation of and with deliberate intent to defeat the purpose of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, by deceiving this Court and bringing about a flagrant abuse of the injunctive process.

Rule 11 further provides that: “For a wilful violation of this rule an attorney may be subjected to appropriate disciplinary action. Similar action may be taken if scandalous or indecent matter is inserted.” Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule 11, 28 U.S.C.A.

In United States, to use of and for Benefit of Foster Wheeler Corp. v. American Surety Co., D.C.E.D.N.Y.1938, 25 F.Supp. 225 the Court observed: “The purpose of the signature of ‘at least one attorney of record in his individual name’ is to hold the attorney of record who signs his individual name to strict accountability as is provided in Rule 11 * * 25 F.Supp. at page 226 .

As one of the leading commentators on the Rules has explained: “Rule 11 * * * is designed to lay upon counsel a definite moral and professional obligation in drawing up and presenting pleadings, motions and other papers. His signature is a certificate of good faith. * * * A reputable attorney cannot file sham or frivolous pleadings and motions, or insert scandalous or indecent matter. An attorney who does resort to such tactics should be disciplined * * 2 Moore, Federal Practice § 11.02, pp. 2103-2104 (2d Ed. 1948).

Prior to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure there was no established means whereby to discipline an attorney for filing a sham and false pleading, except by formal rule or order to show cause in a plenary proceeding. See Ex Parte Robinson, 1873, 19 Wall. 505 , 86 U.S. 505 , 22 L.Ed. 205 ; Bradley v. Fisher, 1871, 13 Wall. 335, 354-355 , 80 U.S. 335, 354-355 , 20 L.Ed. 646 ; Ex Parte Bradley, 1868, 7 Wall. 364 , 74 U.S. 364 , 19 L.Ed. 214 ; United States v. Hicks, 9 Cir., 1930, 37 F.2d 289, 292 ; cf. In re Patterson, 9 Cir., 1949, 176 F.2d 966 ; Barnes v. Lyons, 9 Cir., 1911, 187 F. 881 .

The purpose of Rule 11, in my opinion, is to permit summary disciplinary action “for a wilful violation of this rule”. Otherwise the last two sentences of Rule 11 are but surplusage.

The metamorphosis of Rule 11 lends support to this view. As Barron and Holtzoff point out in their authoritative work: “Rule 10 in the May 1936 Preliminary Draft, p. 20, became Rule 11 in the April 1937 draft. * * * The May 1936 Preliminary Draft, p. 20, contained the provision that: ‘For a wilful violation of this rule, an attorney may be held in contempt of court or subjected to other appropriate disciplinary action.’ Whereas the Final Report, p. 11, dropped the phrase ‘held in contempt of court’ as did the earlier April 1937 Report, p. 29. For discussion of contempt of court by attorneys in filing pleadings, see Gavit, The New Federal Rules and State Procedure, 1939, 25 A.B.A.J. 367, 371. The author states in part: ‘The cases have consistently held a lawyer is guilty of misconduct if he files a pleading without a reasonable expectation that the allegations can be proved * * *.’ ” 1 Barron and Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, p. 574 n. 3 (Rules Ed. 1950).

The alternatives in the earlier drafts of Rule 11, providing that for a willful violation of the rule the attorney may either “be held in contempt of court or subjected to other appropriate disciplinary action”, and the mandate of Rule 1 that all the Rules “shall be construed to secure * * * just, speedy, and inexpensive determination * * point to the considerations of reason and policy which prompt the holding here that the last two sentences of Rule 11 are not mere surplusage reciting long-established substantive law, but are procedural and provide summary means for “appropriate disciplinary action” in cases of willful violation of Rule 11.

When an attorney wilfully violates Rule 11 by signing and filing a pleading which he knows to be sham and false, he ipso facto places himself upon notice that he may summarily be subjected by the Court to “appropriate disciplinary action.”

There remains to consider what is “appropriate disciplinary action”, within the meaning of Rule 11, for Mr. Lavine in this case.

While this Court is not bound by state rules or state action either as to admission to practice or as to disbarment, it is proper to follow and uphold the policy and rules of the State in such matters, absent compelling considerations which argue a contrary result. See Selling v. Radford, 1917, 243 U.S. 46 , 37 S.Ct. 377 , 61 L.Ed. 585 ; In re Barton, D.C.N.D.Cal.1931, 54 F.2d 810 ; Barton v. State Bar, 1931, 213 Cal. 186 , 2 P.2d 149 ; Id., 1935, 2 Cal.2d 294 , 40 P.2d 502 .

Disciplinary proceedings are in no sense criminal in nature. They are proceedings peculiar to themselves, sui generis. Herron v. State Bar, 1944, 24 Cal.2d 53 , 147 P.2d 543 , 550; Prime v. State Bar, 1941, 18 Cal.2d 56 , 112 P.2d 881; Marsh v. State Bar, 1934, 2 Cal .2d 75, 39 P.2d 403 .

As has been repeatedly held: “‘ “This is a special proceeding of a civil nature, and the rules applicable to criminal cases do not apply.” ’ ” Fish v. State Bar, 1931, 214 Cal. 215 , 4 P.2d 937, 940 ; In re Vaughan, 1922, 189 Cal. 491 , 209 P. 353, 354 , 24 A.L.R. 858 .

As pointed out by the Supreme Court of California in Marsh v. State Bar:

“The important factor is whether the attorney lacks the necessary and proper moral qualifications to continue in practice.” Prime v. State Bar, supra, 18 Cal.2d 56 , 112 P.2d at page 884 .

The court should “consider the past conduct as well as that which is directly under investigation, for whatever weight it may have in determining the question whether the attorney is imbued with the essential qualities of integrity and honesty, or for any bearing it may have upon his motive or otherwise upon the question of the measure of discipline to be applied.” Kennedy v. State Bar, 1939, 13 Cal.2d 236, 240 , 88 P.2d 920, 921 ; see also: Clark v. State Bar, 1952, 39 Cal.2d 161 , 246 P.2d 1, 8-9 ; Herron v. State Bar, supra, 24 Cal.2d at page 65 , 147 P.2d at page 550; McGrath v. State Bar, 1943, 21 Cal.2d 737 , 135 P.2d 1 ; Stein v. State Bar, 1940, 15 Cal.2d 668 , 104 P.2d 497 ; Petersen v. State Bar, 1940, 16 Cal.2d 57 , 104 P.2d 769 ; McCue v. State Bar, 1935, 4 Cal.2d 79 , 47 P.2d 268 .

In 1930, following trial in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles, Mr. Lavine was convicted by verdict of a jury of the crime of attempted extortion, a felony, as charged in an indictment which specifically alleged that on or about March 10, 1930, Morris Lavine and another “did wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously obtain certain personal property, to wit $75,000, of currency, etc., from one Charles H. Crawford, and three other persons named, and other persons to the grand jury unknown, with the consent of said persons; which said consent was then and there induced by the wrongful use of force and fear by and on the part of said defendants, to wit, by a threat then and there made and communicated to said four abovemamed persons and other persons, verbally by said defendants, to expose certain secrets affecting said named persons, and other persons to the grand jury unknown, and each of them; said personal property in money being then and there the property of Charles H. Crawford, etc.” People v. Lavine, 1931, 115 Cal.App. 289 , 1 P.2d 496, 497 , hearing in California Supreme Court denied, July 30, 1931, appeal dismissed, 1932, 286 U.S. 528 , 52 S.Ct. 500 , 76 L.Ed. 1270 .

In 1934 Mr. Lavine received a full pardon from the Governor, but the California Supreme Court in commenting upon the effect of it observed that “it does not close the judicial eye to the fact that once he had done an act which constituted the offense. * * * The very essence of a pardon is forgiveness or remission of penalty. * * * It implies guilt, and does not wash out the moral stain.” In re Lavine, 1935, 2 Cal.2d 324 , 41 P.2d 161, 163 , 42 P.2d 311 .

As a result of his conviction of the felony of attempted extortion Mr. Lavine was disbarred from practice in this Court on August 10, 1932. Following his reinstatement to practice in the California courts, he was reinstated in this Court by order entered March 21, 1936.

This past record sheds light upon the character of one who would invoke the paramount bankruptcy jurisdiction of this Court to lay the extraordinary writ of injunction not only upon innocent persons but also upon the State Court itself, and to do so by means of a false and fraudulent petition representing to this Court inter alia that there existed $95,000 in “stocks and bonds which the Historical Society has brought as trustee for the * * * Pioneer Society * * * ”; that this fund constituted the “assets” of the Pioneer Society; and that the Pioneer Society had at least some unadjudicated claim to have the $95,000 fund applied to the payment of its debts.

As Poor Richard wisely said: “Half the truth is often a great lie.” Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard’s Almanac (1758).

Mr. Lavine’s fraud upon this Court and his abuse of the injunctive process stand in bold relief when it is borne in mind that every claim asserted by the Pioneer Society to the $95,000 now held in public charitable trust by the Historical Society was in 1953 fully and completely adjudicated and rejected by final judgment of the California Supreme Court. Any man in the street, then, would presumably have a better-grounded legal claim to this trust fund; at the very least a final adverse judgment — the bar of res judicata — would not confront his claim.

As the Supreme Court of California said in Pickering v. State Bar:

Mr. Lavine admits the facts. He could do no less, since they are a matter of record — a record made in the State Court and in this Court by Mr. Lavine himself. As for the state of mind with which he did the admitted acts of misrepresentation and concealment, little more need be said.

To indulge the high improbability that what he did was not deliberate and wilful is to face the necessity of attributing his misconduct to gross negligence. This would aid him not at all, as such negligence itself is ground for the severest of discipline. See Stephens v. State Bar, 1942, 19 Cal.2d 580, 583 , 122 P.2d 549, 550 ; Trusty v. State Bar, 1940, 16 Cal.2d 550, 553 , 107 P.2d 10, 12 .

' Moreover a finding that failure to disclose the adverse outcome of the State Court proceedings resulted from negligence would ignore Mr. Lavine’s lawyer-like ability and industry over the years. Unfortunately, this well-known ability and industry itself points up the deliberate and willful character of the concealment of facts indispensible to proper disposition of the matter by this Court. His intelligence, capabilities, and experience would have led him to set forth at least the results of the State Court proceedings; but lack of the moral fibre necessary to an attorney appears to have stayed his hand.

Henry S. Drinker, Esquire, long-time Chairman of the Standing Committee on Professional Ethics and Grievances of the American Bar Association, in his excellent treatise on Legal Ethics points to the forceful language of Judge Magruder in People ex rel. Attorney General v. Beattie, 1891, 137 Ill. 553, 574 , 27 N.E. 1096 , 1103:

The Clerk will enter the following order herein:

By reason of Morris Lavine’s willful violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and by reason of Morris Lavine’s willful and deliberate fraud upon this Court and his willful and deliberate abuse of the injunctive processes of this Court, all as shown by the files and records and proceedings “In the Matter of the Los Angeles County Pioneer Society, a corporation, Debtor,” numbered in Bankruptcy No. 62,149-WM on the records of this Court, see In re Los Angeles County Pioneer Society, 40 Cal.2d 852 , 257 P.2d 1, 7-10 , certiorari denied Los Angeles County Pioneer Society v. Historical Society of Southern Cal., 1953, 346 U.S. 888 , 74 S.Ct. 139 , Morris La-vine is subject to appropriate disciplinary action as a member of the bar of this Court; and in view of his past conduct of which this Court takes judicial notice insofar as it is a matter of public record. See People v. Lavine, 115 Cal.App. 289 , 1 P.2d 496 ; Lavine v. People of State of Cal., 286 U.S. 528 , 52 S.Ct. 500 , 76 L.Ed. 1270 ; In re Lavine, 2 Cal.2d 324 , 41 P.2d 161 , 42 P.2d 311 .

It is now ordered that the Clerk forthwith strike the name of Morris Lavine from the roll of attorneys entitled to practice in this Court, and that Morris Lavine be disbarred from all right and privilege hereafter to practice as an attorney, counsellor solicitor, proctor or advocate in this Court.