Opinion ID: 1238167
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Harm to the Public and Legal Profession

Text: The harm caused to the public and to the legal profession by Houge's conduct is the prejudice to the administration of justice. A lawyer's duty of candor to the court goes to the core of preserving the soundness of the justice system. See In re Salmen, 484 N.W.2d at 254 (Our legal system depends on the truthfulness of the testimony of witnesses and false testimony strikes at the very heart of the administration of justice.). The integrity of our legal system depends first on the honesty and integrity of lawyers. See In re Ruffenach, 486 N.W.2d 387, 391 (Minn.1992); In re Nilva, 266 Minn. 576, 583, 123 N.W.2d 803, 809 (1963). The duties of honesty and integrity are owed both to the court, see In re Ruhland, 442 N.W.2d 783, 786 (Minn. 1989), and by right of expectation to the general public, In re Ruffenach, 486 N.W.2d at 391. A breach of these duties warrants severe discipline. Id. Houge responds that if he caused any harm by his actions, that harm ended in April 2003, when X ostensibly left Houge's employ. Because any misconduct was limited to this one client, Houge also argues that the conduct will not be repeated. Finally, Houge maintains that no member of the public suffered actual loss from his relationship with X. While this is not a case in which an attorney took advantage of a client for personal gain, Houge did benefit from the sham transaction to the extent that Houge's law practice received X's services and X repaid a debt owed to Houge. In addition, when the Hennepin County District Court found that X had violated the conditions of his probation, the court noted that several members of the public were harmed by X's ability to engage in unsupervised transactions. We likewise conclude that, by facilitating X's probation violation, Houge caused harm both to the public and the legal profession.