Case Title: In Re DeVinny

Citation: 255 N.W.2d 832

Docket Number: 

State: minnesota

Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Date: 1977-06-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
255 N.W.2d 832 (1977) In re Application for the Discipline of Robert F. DeVINNY, an Attorney at Law of the State of Minnesota. No. 47657. Supreme Court of Minnesota. June 17, 1977. *833 R. Walter Bachman, Jr., Administrative Director on Professional Conduct, St. Paul, for petitioner. A. M. Sandy Keith, Rochester, for respondent. Robert F. DeVinny, pro se. Considered and decided by the court without oral argument. PER CURIAM. These proceedings are brought to the Court on the petition for the discipline of Robert F. DeVinny, an attorney at law, for participating in activities constituting the unauthorized practice of law by a collection agency. The attorney has stipulated to the facts and presented for the Court's consideration mitigating circumstances. Mr. DeVinny was admitted to practice in this state on May 24, 1963, and is a member in good standing of the bar. The improprieties which gave rise to these proceedings occurred from 1966 to 1972, during which time the attorney represented Rochester Collections, Inc., of Rochester, Minnesota. A violation of DR 1-102(A)(4), Code of Professional Responsibility is not disputed: The facts giving rise to the violation of this disciplinary rule are set forth in the Administrative Director's petition as follows: A violation of DR 3-101(A) is also undisputed: The facts giving rise to that violation are also set forth in Administrative Director's petition as follows: By way of mitigating circumstances it appears that this attorney has been guilty of no other improprieties during the time he has been in practice and discontinued his relationship with Rochester Collections, Inc., in December 1972. His misconduct has resulted in no financial loss to either his client or to any of the creditors or debtors associated with the collection agency. He enjoys a good reputation in the community and has been active in its civic affairs. The attorney recognizes the impropriety of his activities and attributes these violations to the fact he was an individual practitioner who lacked experience. For an attorney to lend his name to a collection agency, without personally authorizing or supervising the procedures and processes which are pursued in his name, is a wilful misrepresentation of his professional status and a grossly improper participation in the unauthorized practice of law for which he is subjected to severe public censure by this Court. Under other circumstances these violations might be grounds for suspension or disbarment. However, in view of the attorney's otherwise unblemished record, his recognition of the improprieties, and his cooperation with the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board in acknowledging these violations, we deem public censure to be an appropriate sanction. It is so ordered.