## Facts

- F. P. Sizer and H. A. Gardner were Missouri attorneys who represented injured plaintiffs, frequently in railroad-related personal injury matters.
- Railroad companies investigated the firm’s practices and gathered affidavits alleging unethical client solicitation and improper financial dealings tied to obtaining employment.
- Bar association officers filed original disciplinary charges in the Supreme Court of Missouri seeking disbarment.
- Allegations included that Sizer made a $100 loan to an existing client (Parker), and that former clients or intermediaries told potential claimants (including O’Connor and Holloway) the firm would provide money if retained.
- Sizer acknowledged the Parker loan but characterized it as charity to a destitute client rather than an inducement for retention.
- In the O’Connor and Holloway matters, the record reflected that Sizer did not ultimately provide the alleged promised loans, and the representations about money were made by intermediaries rather than directly by the lawyers.
- The evidence relied heavily on affidavits produced through the railroad-sponsored investigation rather than testimony establishing the lawyers’ authorization of solicitation or inducements.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence proved that Sizer and Gardner directly or indirectly solicited employment through intermediaries functioning as “runners.”
2. Whether loans or promises of financial assistance to clients or prospective clients constituted misconduct warranting disbarment on this record.
3. Whether the evidence—largely affidavit-based and generated by adverse interests—met the clear and convincing standard required for disbarment.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Missouri declined to disbar Sizer and Gardner.
- The court held the proof was not sufficiently clear and convincing to establish unethical solicitation or financial inducements attributable to the lawyers.
- The court treated disbarment as an extreme sanction requiring convincing, satisfactory evidence, and found the record—particularly the affidavit-based allegations—insufficient.

## Legal Principles

- Disbarment requires clear and convincing (convincing and satisfactory) proof of professional misconduct; doubtful or equivocal proof is insufficient for the ultimate sanction.
- Lawyers may not employ or compensate agents or “runners” to procure professional employment; discipline requires proof the intermediaries acted with the lawyer’s knowledge, authorization, or incentive.
- Financial assistance to clients may be unethical when used as an inducement for employment; an isolated, charitable loan does not justify disbarment absent proof of improper purpose or a solicitation scheme.
- In attorney-discipline matters, the court may discount evidence whose reliability is weakened by hearsay, lack of meaningful testing, or origins in investigations conducted by parties hostile to the respondent attorneys.

## Conclusion

The Missouri Supreme Court refused to impose disbarment because the accusations of solicitation through intermediaries and loan-based inducements were not proven by the level of reliable, clear, and convincing evidence required to terminate an attorney’s right to practice.


In re Sizer & Gardner, 267 S.W. 922 (Mo. 1924)