Court Opinion

ID: 9741684
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:00:30.761202+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:25.474136
License: Public Domain

Murphy, Justice
(concurring specially).
While I agree substantially with the statements contained in the majority opinion, I would have preferred if the court had in this instance followed Supreme Court Rule XXI (222 Minn, xxxix), which provides among other things:
“Any complaint concerning professional misconduct on the part of *383any member of the bar of the state of Minnesota, or any petition for reinstatement, shall be referred to the Practice of Law Committee of the Minnesota State Bar Association for investigation, disposition and report to this court, by such means and under such rules as said committee may from time to time' promulgate.”
Moreover, since this is a proceeding disciplinary in nature, I would have preferred that the usual practice in disciplinary proceedings be followed — namely, that the attorney general be furnished with a bill of complaint setting forth the asserted breaches of conduct and that he be given an opportunity for hearing thereon pursuant to the procedures outlined and approved in State ex rel. Russell v. Ives, 60 Minn. 478, 62 N. W. 831; Ex parte Bradley, 74 U. S. (7 Wall.) 364, 19 L. ed. 214; Savin, Petitioner, 131 U. S. 267, 9 S. Ct. 699, 33 L. ed. 150; Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co. 221 U. S. 418, 31 S. Ct. 492, 55 L. ed. 797, 34 L.R.A. (N.S.) 874; Cooke v. United States, 267 U. S. 517, 45 S. Ct. 390, 69 L. ed. 767; Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U. S. 409, 17 S. Ct. 841, 42 L. ed. 215; In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257, 68 S. Ct. 499, 92 L. ed. 682; Cammer v. United States, 350 U. S. 399, 76 S. Ct. 456, 100 L. ed. 474.
At the proceeding held May 27, 1959, which was investigatory in nature, the attorney general failed to appear. Robert Mattson, deputy attorney general, appeared in his behalf, and was not permitted to be heard. While I do not challenge the conclusions of my brethren on the court, it is my feeling that the interests of due process would have been better served had we heard whatever mitigating circumstances the attorney general wished to submit, which may have occurred under the emergencies and pressures of the crisis which gave rise to these proceedings.
I further concur with the statements of the majority opinion completely exonerating William B. Randall, George M. Scott, and Robert W. Johnson of any acts which might suggest unethical conduct.