Court Opinion

ID: 9686607
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 15:58:26.241423+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:20.905740
License: Public Domain

MORGAN, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent from that part of the opinion which adopts the referee’s recommendation for discipline. As the opinion notes, the Disciplinary Board recommended a ninety-day suspension from practice which would in turn be suspended upon compliance with certain conditions. The referee went further, however, and recommended a one-hundred-eighty-day suspension from practice, the first ninety days absolute and the second ninety days set aside upon compliance with conditions similar to those set by the Disciplinary Board.
I would follow the recommendation of the Disciplinary Board. Great weight should be given to their recommendation. The lawyers and layman who serve on that Board have a difficult task. There is no *499suggestion that Strange’s activities had any influence on any client or legal business. The finding of fault is all &ased upon maintaining the integrity of the Bar. I would suggest that the seven-member board can far better assess the impact of Strange’s activities on the integrity of the Bar than can the referee, a judge, residing at the opposite end of the state.
I would also note that SDCL 16-19-83 provides: “No attorney suspended for more than three months ... may resume practice until reinstated by order of the Supreme Court.” This entails an application and hearing before the Disciplinary Board, recommendations from the Disciplinary Board and a hearing before this Court. SDCL 16-19-84. The judgment clearly provides for suspension of 180 days. In providing for automatic reinstatement at the end of 90 days, it obviously runs afoul of the above rules.
As much as I would like to temporize the penalty inflicted under this judgment, I can find no authority in our disciplinary rules to do so.