Andor D. Skotnes, The Black Freedom Movement and the Worker's Movement in Baltimore, 1930-1939, Rutger's PhD, 1991,
Image No: 326
   Enlarge and print image (62K)            << PREVIOUS   NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space


 

Andor D. Skotnes, The Black Freedom Movement and the Worker's Movement in Baltimore, 1930-1939, Rutger's PhD, 1991,
Image No: 326
   Enlarge and print image (62K)            << PREVIOUS   NEXT >>
326 Jupiter case. Because of the service Ades had rendered in defending poor Blacks and in establishing the right of Blacks to sit on juries in Maryland, and because Ades had been under suspension since October 1933, Soper did not disbar Ades, but only reprimanded him "severely. Ades and the ILD were by no means happy with Soper's decision. However, the right of the ILD to intervene in cases without explicit prior invitation had been upheld, aiiu Ades was again able to resume his practice of law. Moreover, Herbert O'Conor's complaint to the state bar association was now moot, since it had essentially been preempted by Soper's decision. The forces of law and order were not, though, finished with Ades. An investigation of the Home Finance Company, Inc., of Baltimore, of which Bernard Ades was an agent and his father, Harry Ades, was president, resulted in a restraining order in mid-May, issued by Maryland Attorney General Lane. The restraining order froze trading in the company's stock. Officially, of course, there was no relationship between this restraining order and the state's campaign against Ades and the ILD. More importantly, by the time of the restraining order against Home Finance, another attempt to disbar Ades was in full swing. A week or two after Soper's decision, Ades was informed that the grievance committee of the Baltimore City Bar Association was bringing two charges of misconduct against him. The charges were essentially the two that Soper had sustained: attempting to obtain Euel Lee's body and slandering judges and state officials. On May 8, Ades advised the city bar association that he was refusing to reply to its charges because he did not recognize the association's jurisdiction over him. The city bar association, he argued, denied membership to Black lawyers and thereby forfeited "its right to act as representative of the entire bar" in the city. In response, on June 25, the bar association filed disbarment charges against Ades with the Baltimore City Supreme Bench. Like the other segregationists attacking Ades, the bar association, as a racially-exclusive organization, was remarkably unconcerned over the flagrant