IN RE W. H. BOORAM. SUSPENSION AS ATTORNEY-AT-LAW.

A complaint of unprofessional conduct against W. H. Booram, an attorney of
this court, was presented by A. T. Hashim on December 5th, 1916. This complaint
was forwarded to the Attorney-General of the Philippine Islands who investigated
the same, and in a report dated July 9th, 1917, recommended that the said
attorney be suspended from the practice of the law, in accordance with section
21 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The evidence was taken by a commissioner appointed by this court to which
commissioner later the said Booram objected. But in view of his answer and the
exhibits filed in this case, it is considered that there is no need for passing
upon his objections to the hearing before the commissioner.

It appears from the record that A. T. Hashim had an account against one
Antonio Villeta, a tailor of this city, for the sum of P265.17 which was placed
in the hands of Booram for collection. The sum of P40 in cash was collected, and
he collected by means of clothing made for him by the said Villeta the sum of
P92.58, making a total of just one-half of the account of Hashim against
Villeta.

On November 22, 1916, Booram and Mahoney by W. H. Booram, attorneys, made the
following return to Hashim, as appears from Exhibit H.

“November 22, 1916.

“The Hashim Commercial & Trading Co. Ltd.,
“Dr. to Booram and
Mahoney.

“To attorney fees vs. A. Villeta 50 per cent of
P265.17……………………………………………………
P132.58

“Collected from A. Villeta and applied on
fee……………………………………………………. P132.58

“Booram and Mahoney,
“By (sgd.) W. H. Booram.”

There is no dispute about this fact. The fee which Booram charged for
collecting the account against Villeta was the whole amount collected, though
only half of the original claim.

Booram in his written answer makes no satisfactory explanation of this
transaction. He pretends that Hashim owed him for former legal work, but this
does not excuse his receiving an account for P265.17 and collecting half of
that account from the debtor, and claiming all the money collected as his fee
for the work done in that case. Nor does the evidence sustain his defense that
he had done other work for Hashim for which he had not been paid.

We are of the opinion, and so hold, that this conduct on the part of W. H.
Booram, an attorney of this court, was unprofessional and unethical, and that
the recommendation of the Attorney-General that he should be suspended from the
practice of the law is a proper recommendation, and should be granted.

Wherefore, it is adjudged, ordered and decreed that the said W. H. Booram be
and he is hereby suspended as an attorney-at-law in the Philippine Islands for a
period of two years from this date. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Johnson, Carson, Araullo, Street, and
Avanceña, JJ., concur.

Malcolm, J., did not take part.