Opinion ID: 2200604
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 41

Heading: supplemental holdings

Text: In totality, the record supports by a clear and undoubted preponderance of the testimony the findings of Referee and his conclusions that Respondent has violated a number of the Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility and their underlying Disciplinary Rules. In case after case, Respondent has demonstrated conduct which adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law and which was prejudicial to the administration of justice. We, first of all, comment on the bankruptcy practice as it was carried on by Respondent, who apparently fancied himself to be somewhat of an expert. In addition to the testimony regarding Respondent's deficiencies as related by Fousek, [7] there is also the testimony by deposition of Andrew J. Schmid (Schmid), an attorney for the United States Trustee's Office, whose duties included supervision of bankruptcy estates in South Dakota. Schmid had supervised several cases in which Respondent was involved. He testified regarding several areas where Respondent had been delinquent in preparation of filings and complying with bankruptcy rules. In particular, Respondent apparently did not properly nor timely file applications for employment and for fees. In Schmid's opinion, Respondent did not understand bankruptcy rules, did not have bankruptcy knowledge nor bankruptcy experience. Schmid further pointed out specific instances in the Kessel, Gruwell and Klusman cases [8] to support his opinion. He further testified that it was based on these instances that he had requested the Bankruptcy Judge to bar Respondent from bankruptcy practice. From our reading of the record, Respondent was apparently adept at securing substantial retainer fees and initiating the filing, but was woefully deficient in following up properly. Unfortunately, he apparently spent the retainers before they were properly allowed, so that when he was called to account, he could not produce the money to comply with the court orders. Additionally, we find Respondent's conduct in filing the motion in the Maguire bankruptcy and the affidavit in the quiet title action to be very disturbing. They clearly demonstrate a propensity on the part of Respondent to use any tactic to achieve his end, be it ethical or otherwise. Having examined and approved Referee's report with regard to the acts of misconduct, we now turn to the question of the appropriate discipline to be imposed upon Respondent. SDCL 16-19-35 provides that misconduct shall be grounds for: (1) Disbarment by the Supreme Court; (2) Suspension by the Supreme Court for an appropriate fixed period of time, or for an appropriate fixed period of time and an indefinite period concurrently or thereafter to be determined by the condition imposed by the judgment. No suspension shall be ordered for a specific period in excess of three years; (3) Placement on a probationary status by the Supreme Court for a stated period, or until further order of the Court, with such conditions as the Court may specify; (4) Public censure by the Supreme Court; or (5) Private reprimand by the disciplinary board. Referee's primary recommendation was for a suspension from the practice of law for a period of three years and for an indefinite period thereafter until Respondent successfully passes the South Dakota Combined Multi-State Bar Examination, Essay Examination and Multi-State Professional Responsibility Examination. Additionally, Referee recommended terms and conditions, including: the return of all files and documents of clients; reimbursement to the State Bar and appropriate authorities for all costs of this proceeding and those of any readmission proceeding; satisfactory restitution to the Bankruptcy Court and all clients for all fees ordered deposited; and that Respondent seek and obtain counseling and evaluation for stress and related emotional problems and report the results to the State Bar of South Dakota. Referee's recommendations track pretty much the recommendations of the Disciplinary Board, as found in their formal accusation. At the oral argument, counsel for Board advised us, however, that Board now seeks disbarment. We need not give deference to Referee's or Board's recommendation for sanctions. The ultimate decision for discipline of members of the State Bar rests with this court. Dana, 415 N.W.2d at 822. Respondent had ample notice of the numerous charges made against him and opportunity to defend against them. In re Kunkle, 88 S.D. 269, 218 N.W.2d 521 (1974), cert. denied 419 U.S. 1036, 95 S.Ct. 521, 42 L.Ed.2d 312 (1974). At oral argument he became aware that Board then sought disbarment and had opportunity to respond at oral argument and by his written objections which we permitted him to interpose after argument. Dixon v. State Bar of California, 32 Cal.3d 728, 187 Cal.Rptr. 30, 653 P.2d 321 (1982) (where respondent advised of all charges against him, no violation of due process rights if respondent not notified before Supreme Court hearing that State Bar would request disbarment); see also C. Wolfram, Modern Legal Ethics § 3.4.2 (1986). In weighing Referee's recommendations, we are mindful of the goal of proceedings such as this: The purpose of disciplinary proceedings is not to punish but to remove from the profession those attorneys whose misconduct has proved them unfit to be entrusted with duties and responsibilities belonging to the office of an attorney so that the public may be protected from further wrongdoing. Disbarment is warranted when it is clear that the protection of society requires such action or where the maintenance of respect for courts and judges or the respectability of the legal profession itself demands such action. Matter of Discipline of Crabb, 416 N.W.2d 258, 259 (S.D.1987); Matter of Walker, 254 N.W.2d 452 (S.D.1977). Referee made several findings pertinent to his recommendation. He specifically found that: 1. Respondent was considerably stressed by the separation from his wife in 1983 and the divorce in 1985. 2. Respondent had the responsibility for raising and educating his three sons. 3. Respondent developed emotional and stress problems which contributed toward his suffering a heart attack or coronary problem of some kind on August 16, 1986. 4. Respondent's financial problems rendered him virtually without financial support by the spring of 1986. 5. Respondent's emotional, financial, physical and other problems contributed toward a condition that impaired his ability to focus upon his obligations to diligently represent his clients commencing in at least 1985. In closing, Referee commented that, from his personal observation of Respondent's appearance, manner and demeanor, he was convinced that Respondent was presently unable to effectively function as a lawyer. In his response, Respondent attributes all of his problems to the alleged machinations of Fousek, apparently aided and abetted by Respondent's own secretary. Nowhere does Respondent acknowledge that he, personally, ever made a mistake; this, despite his failure to timely and properly file bankruptcy papers and the dismissal of a state court appeal for failure to timely file an appellate brief. Respondent also makes mention of the heart attack, which at one point in the record he denominated an adrenaline attack. Although there is some evidence that Respondent was hospitalized only two or three days as a result of the condition, the record is devoid of any medical evidence to support this claimed heart attack. In any event, when such a disabling event occurred, it was Respondent's duty to secure other counsel to properly handle his clients' cases. Riccio, 426 N.Y.S.2d 887. From the record before us, as well as our observation of Respondent, it is our opinion that the Disciplinary Board's initial recommendation and the Referee's recommended sanction are far too lenient. This is especially true considering Respondent's utter incomprehension that he has done anything wrong. Therefore, we order the following sanctions: (1) Effective immediately, a judgment shall forthwith be entered disbarring Respondent, revoking his license to practice, and striking his name from the Clerk's roll of attorneys; (2) Respondent shall immediately comply with the notice provisions of SDCL 16-19-78 through 16-19-80 inclusive, and return all files and documents of clients; (3) Respondent shall pay for all of the cost of this action under SDCL 16-19-70; (4) As a precondition to any petition for reinstatement, Respondent must prove he has satisfied the following terms: (a) make satisfactory restitution to the Bankruptcy Court and all clients for all fees ordered deposited, (b) reimburse the State Bar and appropriate authorities for all cost of this proceeding and those of any readmission proceeding; (c) demonstrate that he has obtained counseling, evaluation, and treatment for stress and related emotional problems. It will be so ordered. WUEST, C.J., and SABERS and MILLER, JJ., concur. HENDERSON, J., dissents.