Court Opinion

ID: 9836191
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:01:45.943175+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:14.228633
License: Public Domain

*84VANDE WALLE, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
[¶ 21] I would impose an admonition as reciprocal discipline for Haderlie’s conduct for interfering with a peace officer in Wyoming for which he was convicted and disciplined in that State. I respectfully dissent to the conclusion that a lawyer in North Dakota would not be disciplined for similar action were it to occur in this State.
[1122] Rule 8.4(f), N.D.R. Prof. Conduct, provides: “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: ... (f) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, ...” Apparently, as the concurring opinion seems to illustrate, the rule of interpretation found in N.D.C.C. § 1-02-05 that when the wording is clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit, does not apply to our disciplinary rules. Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th edition, defines the term “administration of justice” as follows: “The maintenance of right within a political community by means of the physical force of the state; the state’s application of the sanction of force to the rule of right.” Under that definition were his acts not prejudicial to the administration of justice and therefore professional misconduct under the plain language of the rule?
[¶ 28] While it may be arguable that not all crimes are necessarily prejudicial to the administration of justice, I do not agree that only that conduct connected with judicial proceedings is encompassed by the rule. It seems imperious to conclude that only in the setting of a judicial proceeding can there be acts prejudicial to the administration of justice. Persons other than lawyers and judges are involved in the administration of justice, albeit in a different setting. Lawyers are required to take an oath of office prescribed by N.D.C.C. § 27-11-20 and § 4 of Article XI of the North Dakota Constitution to “faithfully discharge the duties of the office of attorney and counselor at law.” Peace officers also are required to take the same oath to “faithfully discharge the duties” of their office. N.D.C.C. § 44-01-05. Had-erlie was convicted in Wyoming for interfering with a peace officer who was fulfilling the duties of the office to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Wyoming. The disciplinary authorities in Wyoming determined Haderlie was subject to discipline under statutes and rules similar to those in North Dakota. We should do the same. The sorry spectacle of a licensed lawyer interfering with a peace officer acting in the line of duty is not only damaging to the image and reputation of the legal profession, it is, I submit, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
[¶ 24] Nor do I agree, as Haderlie appears to argue, that because heretofore no North Dakota lawyer has been disciplined for similar conduct that fact somehow immunizes him from reciprocal discipline. To my knowledge the issue has not been before this Court prior to this time. I believe it is clearly prejudicial to the administration of justice for a lawyer to interfere with a peace officer acting in the line of duty and I would impose reciprocal discipline. But, if, as the majority concludes, our rules do not currently make this conduct subject to disciplinary action, they should be amended to do so.
[¶ 25] GERALD W. VANDE WALLE, C.J., and DALE V. SANDSTROM, J., concur.