Title: Matter of Davis
Citation: 264 N.W.2d 371
Docket Number: 47630
State: Minnesota
Issuer: Minnesota Supreme Court
Date: February 10, 1978

264 N.W.2d 371 (1978) In the Matter of the Application for the Discipline of Keith B. DAVIS, an Attorney at Law of the State of Minnesota. No. 47630. Supreme Court of Minnesota. February 10, 1978. R. Walter Bachman, Jr., Administrative Director on Professional Conduct, and Daniel G. Heely, Asst. Administrative Director, Lawyers Professional Resp. Board, St. Paul, for appellant. Keith B. Davis, pro se. Considered and decided by the court en banc. PER CURIAM. This is a proceeding brought by the Administrative Director on Professional Conduct to discipline the respondent Keith B. Davis, an attorney at law admitted to practice in the State of Minnesota on October 20, 1967. The respondent denies the charges and presents as a defense the fact that two of the complaints stem from his conduct as a patent attorney, the regulation of which practice is outside the jurisdiction of state courts. The matter was referred to the Honorable Warren A. Saetre, a judge of the district court, who conducted a hearing and filed findings, conclusions, and a recommendation that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. We hold that the findings are amply supported by the evidence, and the referee's recommendation is adopted. Two of the grounds for discipline arose out of respondent's relationship with clients in the practice of his profession as a patent attorney. In one instance he was paid a retainer but refused to refund or account for the unearned portion of his fee. His client was required to recover that amount by obtaining a judgment in conciliation court. A second client also terminated his retainer when respondent, without advising the client, abandoned the application for a patent he sought, and refused to continue with the work unless his client agreed to give him a 50 percent interest in the client's invention. In each instance the respondent attempted by coercion to secure from his client affidavits exonerating him, and in one instance threatened his client with a libel suit. Equally serious misconduct was found by the referee in matters unrelated to respondent's practice as a patent attorney. Respondent was involved in a protracted and acrimonious action for divorce in the course of which he was twice found in contempt for failing to obey support orders. He used his position as an attorney to harass his former wife with a barrage of motions to the point where he was permanently enjoined by the district court from bringing further motions without the express consent of the court. As a consequence, respondent, without cause or justification, attacked *372 the chief judge of the district court and the judge of the family court accusing the latter of being a character assassin in a conspiracy to destroy his practice and to use her position as a judge to promote her own political ends. In a proceeding in the federal court, stemming from his divorce, respondent sued his wife's marriage counsellor and her attorney for $40,000,000.00 charging them with alienation of affection. In finding for the defendants, the Federal district court observed in an accompanying memorandum: The referee found that respondent was guilty of violating the following provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility The referee concluded with the following recommendation and memorandum: Although this court has no jurisdiction to prohibit the respondent from pursuing his profession as a patent attorney, Sperry v. Florida, 373 U.S. 379, 83 S. Ct. 1322, 10 L. Ed. 2d 428 (1963), his misconduct in that capacity may be grounds for disbarring him from practice in the state courts. This record discloses an inexcusably insensitive understanding of respondent's fiduciary obligation to his clients. It is equally apparent that he suffers from severe emotional instability which seriously impairs his professional judgment. Without the benefit of competent medical testimony neither the referee nor this court is qualified to arrive at a diagnosis or prognosis concerning the respondent's mental health. There is, however, no evidence that respondent is disposed to submit to psychiatric or other medical treatment. In his present condition it is clear that he is not competent to represent clients in areas over which the state courts have jurisdiction. Consequently, we are in accord with the referee's recommendation *374 that he be suspended indefinitely from the practice of law in the State of Minnesota and that a petition for reinstatement not be entertained until such time as he is able to provide substantial evidence that he has overcome his psychiatric problems. It is so ordered.