In re Jung

On this rehearing, we adopt the following statement of the facts from our former opinion:

*202 The referee found, with respect to the material issues herein, that respondent made no false statements, but acted in good faith in the answer given to the question asked; that he did not know the exact meaning of the statement that his services had been discontinued “with prejudice”, and was not expressly advised of the reason for the dismissal; that it was not clearly shown to what extent he knew of the nature or extent of the investigation; and that the testimony of the witnesses for The State Bar was “inconclusive and unsatisfactory”. His explanation of his understanding of the dismissal, which the referee found acceptable, was that he was appointed to his position by a commissioner who was himself a political appointee, holding at the will of the appointing power; that the commissioner died in December, 1932, or January, 1933, and he assumed that his dismissal followed naturally upon the termination of the political appointment of his superior.

The conclusion of the referee, that respondent did not wilfully or knowingly conceal any material facts in his application or make any…

I dissent. In July, 1938, this court decided that the charges made by The State Bar against the respondent had been fully sustained and warrant a revocation of his license to practice law in this state. Thereafter a petition for rehearing was granted. Upon the same evidence which was before the court when the first decision was reached, a majority of the justices now determine that the conclusion of the referee is “a reasonable one”.

I adhere to the views first expressed. In my judgment, the record clearly shows that -while the respondent was in government-service as an interpreter, a complaint xvas made against his conduct; that thereafter an investigation was made which included a statement taken from him concerning the pending-charges, of which he was fully informed; and that thereafter he was dismissed from the service “with prejudice”. It strains ordinary credulity to believe, as found by the referee, that the respondent, with sufficient legal education to pass *203 the bar examination, did not know the meaning of the words “with prejudice” or understand that his dismissal, which followed the investigation of his official conduct by less than three months, had no connection…