Case ID: sd_65/html/0448-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In Re NELSON
    (274 N. W. 833)
    (File No. 7800.
    Opinion filed September 2, 1937)
    
      Clair Roddewig, Atty. Gen., and Ellsworth Evans, Ass’t. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      Thomas R. Nelson, of Dupree, pro- se.
   PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to- ¡the order of this -court under date of January 28, 1935, and following an extended investigation and report of the Grievance Committee of the ¡State Bar of South Dakota, the Attorney General of South Dakota did file, on the 10th day of July, A. D-. 1936, a complaint charging the- defendant, Thomas R. Nelson, with unprofessional conduct. On November 23/ 1936, this court appointed the Honorable Van Burén Perry of Aberdeen, S. D-., as referee. On July 21, 1937, the re-feree filed with this court his' report, including his findings of fact and conclusions of law, and a full -transcript of the testimony, the exhibits, and evidence upon which said findings and conclusions were made. The referee -concluded- that -the defendant had been guilty of unprofessional conduct in seven specific instances charged in the complaint, and recommended disbarment. Thereupon, this court entered its order requiring the defendant to show cause why the findings of fact and conclusions of law o-f the referee should not be approved and adopted by this court, an-d the matter is now before us for consideration.

We have carefully examined the re-cord and are- convinced that no other findings or conclusions could have been entered by the referee. The record' discloses repeated instances of the conversion of funds belonging to defendant’s clients. It also appears from the record that defendant persisted in this conduct, notwithstanding this suspension from practice in 1927 because o-f similar unprofessional conduct. In re Nelson, 51 S. D. 451, 214 N. W. 808.

The conduct of the defendant, persisted in over a long period of time, not only warrants, hut requires, disbarment. In re Brown 64 S. D. 87, 264 N. W. 521; In re Fitzpatrick, 64 S. D. 227, 266 N. W. 150; In re Foy, 62 S. D. 23, 250 N. W. 671; In re Kaas, 39 S. D. 4, 162 N. W. 370.

It is ordered' and adjudged that a judgment of disbarment be entered forthwith against the accused.

All the Judges concur, except PO'LLEY, J., not sitting.