Title: Matter of Paulsrude
Citation: 248 N.W.2d 747
Docket Number: 45922
State: Minnesota
Issuer: Minnesota Supreme Court
Date: December 17, 1976

248 N.W.2d 747 (1976) In the Matter of the Application for the Discipline of L. A. PAULSRUDE, an Attorney at Law of the State of Minnesota. No. 45922. Supreme Court of Minnesota. December 17, 1976. R. Walter Bachman, Jr. and R. B. Reavill and Robert H. Meier, Bd. of Professional Responsibility, St. Paul, for petitioner. L. A. Paulsrude, Dodge Center, for respondent. Considered and decided by the court en banc. PER CURIAM. This is a disciplinary proceeding involving attorney Luther A. Paulsrude of Dodge Center, Minnesota. Hearings were held in Rochester on March 22 and 23, 1976, before the Hon. Luther Sletten, retired judge of the Fourth Judicial District, acting as referee. Following the hearings, Judge Sletten made findings of fact and conclusions, and recommended that Paulsrude be barred from trying cases in Minnesota district or county courts, but that he otherwise be allowed to carry on a general law office practice and a limited probate practice. Judge Sletten also recommended that Paulsrude be placed on probation for 18 months, with the understanding that any violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility during that time would result in total disbarment. Paulsrude has filed a petition with this court requesting complete reinstatement of his license to practice law. On October 4, 1976, oral arguments were heard by this court. Petitioner Paulsrude appeared pro se. The Minnesota Board of Professional Responsibility (Board) was represented by its former director, R. B. Reavill, and petitioned for disbarment. The record discloses the following findings of the referee: The "CONCLUSIONS" of the referee indicate that in the matters involved in the complaints Mr. Paulsrude's conduct violated both Minnesota statutes and the Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Board bases its recommendation for disbarment, in contrast to the referee's suggested restricted practice and courtroom status, on the fact that most of the misconduct occurred outside the courtroom and not as a result of courtroom pressures that might naturally weigh upon a man 65 years of age with certain health problems. Its argument asserts: We agree. The flagrant misconduct exhibited in this case compels us to reject Paulsrude's request for "a total dismissal of these proceedings." Our cardinal obligation to protect the public, the profession, and the courts, in furtherance of the administration of justice, requires that we disbar him from the practice of law. We said in In re Application for Discipline of Raskin, Minn., 239 N.W.2d 459, 461 (1976): It is therefore this court's opinion that the record mandates disbarment in that L. A. Paulsrude is unable to professionally practice in any branch of law. Let judgment of disbarment be entered.