Court Opinion

ID: 9704071
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:20:56.895099+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:55.976963
License: Public Domain

Otis, Justice
(concurring specially).
The attorneys of Minnesota have encouraged this court to raise their registration fees in order to create a State Board of Professional Responsibility which has instituted these disbarment proceedings. Nevertheless, this case uncovers a deplorable situation for which, as our court points out, the bench and bar must shoulder some of the blame. Endeavors by the organized bar to put an end to the practice of vicarious generosity on the part of probate judges in approving the payment of excessive fees to appraisers have met with little success in the legislature.1 While we do not suggest that the practice is necessarily wide*501spread, the fact remains that respondent is not the only probate judge who has used his office to curry favor with colleagues, local officials, and friends. Here, a probation officer, a county commissioner, and another probate judge were permitted to receive a total of $19,800 for performing no service whatever beyond signing an inventory which had already been prepared by the executor and its attorneys. As our opinion indicates, none of those appointed examined any of the property which it was their duty to appraise.
Fees which are grossly out of proportion to the time and responsibility expended constitute nothing more than a gratuity, the granting of which is now grounds for disciplinary action against the judge.* 2 As long as appraisers are permitted to be paid on a percentage basis, without regard to the time and skill required to perform their duties, courts invite the kind of misconduct which has led to this disbarment. The time is at hand when it is incumbent on our profession, which has unequivocally condemned this indefensible practice, to eliminate it once and for all.
Mr. Justice Kelly took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Mr. Justice Todd and Mr. Justice MacLaughlin, not having been members of this court at the time of the argument and submission, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

 Senate File No. 176 introduced at the 1971 session of the legislature failed to pass. It provided in part as follows:
“Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 1969, Section 525.331 is amended to read:
“525.331 [APPRAISAL.] If the inventory lists no property other than moneys of the United States, no appraisal shall be required; otherwise, * * * the representative shall include in such inventory an appraisal of the property comprised therein made by such representative under the penalties of perjury setting forth the fair market values of the various items thereof as of the date of death, or in a guardianship as of the date of the appointment of the guardian as ascertained by such representative to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. Such representative majr in his sole discretion engage a special appraiser or appraisers for any item or items of property required to be inventoried and may pay him reasonable compensation for his services. At any time prior to the filing of the inventory, or at any time within six months thereafter, the court may, on its own motion or upon motion made by any interested party and after such notice as the court may require, order and after hearing upon such motion, may appoint one or more special appraisers of the property required to be inventoried or any item or items thereof, if it shall find such appointment to be in the best interests of the estate. Such appointment shall not be made unless it appears to the court that the circumstances are so uni!S77al nr extraordinary as to make appraisal by the representative inadvisable. Such appraisers shall be sworn to the faithful performance of their duties and, within three months of their appointment unless *501the court shall grant or order a different period of time, shall set down in figures opposite each item after deducting the encumbrances, liens, and charges, the net fair market value thereof, and file their appraisal with the court. The values determined by such special appraisal shall constitute the appraised value of the item or items involved. Such appraisers shall be allowed such reasonable fees, necessary disbursements, and expenses as may be fixed by the court and be paid by the representative as expenses of administration or guardianship.” (Italics omitted.)

 Through the joint efforts of the bench and bar, Standards of Judicial Responsibility have been promulgated and were adopted by the Supreme Court of Minnesota on March 29, 1972. Section II B(3) provides a judge should “[ejxercise his power of appointment on the basis of merit, and confine compensation and reimbursement of appointees within the limits of law and in accordance with the fair value of services rendered." (Italics supplied.) Section VIII C permits sanctions against probate judges in the following language: “A judge who violates any of the preceding rules shall be subject to discipline by the Minnesota Commission on Judicial Standards.”