Title: Matter of Finley
Citation: 261 N.W.2d 841
Docket Number: 47365
State: Minnesota
Issuer: Minnesota Supreme Court
Date: January 20, 1978

261 N.W.2d 841 (1978) In the Matter of the Application for the Discipline of John T. FINLEY, an Attorney at Law of the State of Minnesota. No. 47365. Supreme Court of Minnesota. January 20, 1978. *842 R. Walter Bachman, Jr., Administrative Director on Professional Conduct, St. Paul, for appellant. Joseph J. Dudley, M. J. Galvin, Jr., St. Paul, for respondent. Considered and decided by the court without oral argument. PER CURIAM. The Administrative Director on Professional Conduct, at the direction of the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board, has filed with the court six complaints against John T. Finley, an attorney at law, alleging professional misconduct and seeking appropriate disciplinary action. Respondent Finley has interposed an answer asserting by way of defense that no party, individual, or municipality has been injured or harmed by his acts and asserts that no more than a private reprimand is warranted. The matter was referred to the Honorable Clarence A. Rolloff, Judge of the District Court (Retired), who conducted a hearing and on October 25, 1977, filed with the court Findings and Conclusions, and recommended a public censure of respondent Finley. The findings of the Referee are not disputed and counsel for respondent has waived the right to file briefs and present oral argument to the court. The pertinent portions of the Referee's Findings and Conclusions are as follows: The respondent Finley asserts by way of justification for his conduct that "it was a customary practice for a notary public to, when circumstances warranted, acknowledge documents in blank or acknowledge the documents when the person whose signature is being acknowledged is not present and there was reasonable cause to believe that the procedure was authorized by the party whose acknowledgement was being taken. The conduct of the respondent in this instance did not vary in material part from the practice of the community as a whole." We categorically reject this defense for two reasons; First, there is no evidence of a widespread violation of Minn.St. 609.65(2) under which imprisonment *846 for up to 90 days is authorized for falsely certifying an acknowledgement. Nor do we take judicial notice of such pervasive violations of the statute. More important, members of the bar are held to a higher standard of morality than the public generally. They take an oath to conduct themselves in an upright manner and to "use no falsehood or deceit." Minn.St. 358.07, subd. 9. In falsely representing to the city that the persons whose acknowledgements he certified had personally appeared before him, he violated his professional oath and made possible three acts of forgery. We strongly condemn such behavior and publicly censure respondent for willfully and intentionally executing false certificates. Similar violations by members of the bar in future cases may well be dealt with more severely. However, this appears to be a case of first impression and the Referee has found that respondent had no intent to defraud, was unaware of the forgeries, has been cooperative in these proceedings, and otherwise has an unblemished record. Accordingly, the sanction of public censure is deemed adequate but should not necessarily be construed as a precedent in all future cases.