263 F.Supp. 360 (E.D.Va.) (per curiam), aff’d per curiam, 381 F.2d 713 (4th Cir.1967)
Richard R. Ryder was admitted to the bar of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in 1953.1 He formerly served five years as an Assistant United States Attorney and has maintained an active trial practice in both civil and criminal cases.2
This proceeding was instituted to determine whether Richard R. Ryder should be removed from the roll of attorneys qualified to practice before the court.3
On August 24, 1966, a man armed with a sawed-off shotgun robbed the Varina Branch of the Bank of Virginia of $7,583.4 Included in the currency taken were $10 bills known as bait money, the serial numbers of which had been recorded.5 On August 26, 1966, Charles Richard Cook rented safety deposit box 14 at a branch of the Richmond National Bank.6 Later that day, FBI agents interviewed Cook at his home and obtained $348 from him.7 Cook telephoned Ryder, who had represented him in civil litigation, and Ryder came to the house and advised the agents that he represented Cook.8
The following day, Ryder learned from an FBI agent that some of the bills taken from Cook were bait money from the robbery.9 Ryder conferred with Cook, who offered an implausible explanation about receiving money to place a package in a lockbox, which Ryder disbelieved.10 That afternoon, Ryder telephoned a former officer of the Richmond Bar Association to discuss his course of action.11 In their casual conversation Ryder told what he knew about the case, omitting names.12 He explained that he thought he would take the money from Cook’s safety deposit box and place it in a box in his own name.13
On Monday morning, Ryder asked Cook to come by his office.14 He prepared a power of attorney, which Cook signed.15 Ryder took the power of attorney to the Richmond National Bank.16 He rented box 13 in his name with his office address, presented the power of attorney, entered Cook’s box, took both boxes into a booth, where he found a bag of money and a sawed-off shotgun in Cook’s box.17 He transferred the contents of Cook’s box to his own and returned the boxes to the vault.18 He left the bank, and neither he nor Cook returned.19 On September 12, 1966, FBI agents procured search warrants for Cook’s and Ryder’s safety deposit boxes in the Richmond National Bank.20 They found Cook’s box empty.21 In Ryder’s box they discovered $5,920 of the $7,583 taken in the bank robbery and the sawed-off shotgun used in the robbery.22 Cook was indicted on September 7, 1966.23 On October 14, 1966, the three judges of this court removed Ryder as an attorney for Cook, suspended him from practice before the court until further order, and set the matter for hearing.24
Whether Richard R. Ryder should be removed from the roll of attorneys qualified to practice before the court?25
In proceedings of this kind the charges must be sustained by clear and convincing proof, the misconduct must be fraudulent, intentional, and the result of improper motives. See In re Fisher, 179 F.2d 361 (7th Cir. 1950), cert. denied sub nom. Kerner v. Fisher, 340 U.S. 825, 71 S.Ct. 59, 95 L.Ed. 606 (1950).26
No. Ryder took possession of stolen money and a sawed-off shotgun, knowing that the money had been stolen and that the gun had been used in an armed robbery.27 He intended to retain this property pending his client’s trial unless the government discovered it.28 He intended by his possession to destroy the chain of evidence that linked the contraband to his client and to prevent its use to establish his client’s guilt.29
Ryder obtained a power of attorney from Cook, rented his own safety deposit box, and transferred the bag of money and the sawed-off shotgun from Cook's box to his own.
Ryder should be suspended from practice for eighteen months rather than removed from the roll.30
Whether Ryder's conduct in taking possession of the stolen money and sawed-off shotgun from his client's safety deposit box violated the Canons of Professional Ethics?31
Canon 15 provides that the great trust of the lawyer is to be performed within and not without the bounds of law.32 The office of attorney does not permit violation of law or any manner of fraud or chicane.33 Canon 32 provides that no client is entitled to receive and no lawyer should render any service or advice involving disloyalty to the law or deception or betrayal of the public.34
Yes. Ryder transferred the contents of Cook's safety deposit box to his own box with the intention of retaining the stolen money and shotgun until after trial unless discovered by the government.35 Ryder's conduct went far beyond the receipt and retention of a confidential communication from his client and was not encompassed by the attorney-client privilege.36 Ryder knew the money was stolen and the gun was used in the robbery when he made the transfer on August 29, 1966, and he acted to hinder the government in the prosecution of its case.37
Ryder's conduct violated Canons 15 and 32 of the Canons of Professional Ethics.38
Whether mitigating circumstances justified suspending Ryder from practice for eighteen months rather than permanently excluding him?39
Were it not for mitigating circumstances a lawyer who conceals stolen money and a sawed-off shotgun to secure a client's acquittal would merit permanent exclusion from practice before the court.40
Yes. Ryder intended to return the bank's money after his client was tried.41 He consulted reputable persons before and after he placed the property in his lockbox, although he did not precisely follow their advice.42 These facts distinguish the case from one warranting permanent exclusion.43 The court therefore imposed an eighteen-month suspension effective October 14, 1966, rather than permanent removal from the roll.44
Mitigating circumstances justified suspending Ryder from practice for eighteen months rather than permanently excluding him.45