Opinion ID: 1690351
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Public Harm.

Text: Kaiser's conduct was also criminal. [4] Kaiser has admitted that he was concerned about the criminal penalties, stating that he had done research with respect to North Dakota statutes on perjury ... [and knew] that the statute of [limitations for] perjury was three years.... Kiker v. Walters , (Tr. of Kaiser's testimony October 4-5 (1990)). Because he has not been convicted of any crime, however, Kaiser argues that he should not be disbarred or suspended. We believe that it is immaterial that Kaiser was not criminally charged with perjury or giving false testimony. A criminal conviction is not a condition precedent to a discipline proceeding when the facts themselves warrant discipline. Committee on Professional Ethics and Conduct of the Iowa State Bar Association v. Williams, 473 N.W.2d 203, 206 (Iowa 1991). Escaping criminal charges because the statute of limitations has expired does not lessen the seriousness of the misconduct. The criminal character of the misconduct is one measure of the public harm. The primary purpose of a disciplinary action is not to punish the lawyer, but to shield the public from the lawyer who is not worthy of public trust. The court is vested with the duty of maintaining the integrity of the legal profession, and must determine if the public interest is served by allowing the lawyer to continue practicing. See Matter of Maragos, 285 N.W.2d 541, 545 (N.D.1979). Kaiser's deliberate false testimony under oath is clearly contrary to accepted standards of honesty, justice, or morality. Matter of Walton, 251 N.W.2d 762, 763 (N.D.1977). Violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility or the Rules of Professional Conduct is another gauge of the public harm. False testimony also violates the pledge that Kaiser made in 1969 when he was admitted to the North Dakota Bar: On my honor, I do solemnly promise: I will maintain the respect due to Courts of Justice and Judicial officers;       I will employ for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to me such means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and will never seek to mislead the judge or jury by any artifice or false statement of fact or law;       (Our emphasis). Kaiser's false statements of fact dishonored his promise to the profession and thereby lowered the public regard for the rule of law. We understand that Kaiser may have held a false sense of loyalty to his family that conflicted with his sense of professional ethics. But we think that it is also clear that Kaiser's misconduct was motivated, at least in part, by the potential for profit to himself, his family, and his partners. Misplaced loyalties and motivations apart from a lawyer's obligation to the legal system cannot rationalize misconduct or avoid sanctions. We recognize, too, that Kaiser has demonstrated remorse for his misconduct. Still, the status of the legal profession has suffered grievously from Kaiser's misconduct. His perjuries have been very detrimental to the public interest, and have imposed greatly on judicial resources. See Hunt Trust Estate v. Kiker, 269 N.W.2d 377 (N.D.1978); Serhienko v. Kiker, 392 N.W.2d 808 (N.D.1986); Kaiser v. Kaiser, 474 N.W.2d 63 (N.D.1991); Kiker v. Walters, 482 N.W.2d 626 (N.D.1992); and this extended disciplinary proceeding, as well as additional proceedings still pending in the trial courts after remand of Kiker v. Walters . Kaiser's lies and misplaced loyalties created a tangled web of deception that the judicial system continues to unravel yet. It is difficult to imagine conduct more hurtful to the public appraisal of the legal profession than the deliberate use by an attorney of false testimony in the judicial process. Dodd v. The Florida Bar, 118 So.2d, at 19. Kaiser's behavior is antithetical to the oath, the standards, and the ideals of the legal profession. The Florida Bar v. Prior, 330 So.2d 697, 702 (Fla. 1976) (at 703: [A]n attorney who gives false testimony in a judicial proceeding `deserves the harshest penalty.') Repeated false testimony deserves a severe sanction.