Court Opinion

ID: 9660828
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:21:51.49269+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:22.517554
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent.
I support disbarment because:
(1) Johnson admits to the commission of 100 misdemeanors (possession and use of marijuana) and one felony (use of cocaine) even though his only conviction was for possession of marijuana — a misdemeanor.
*220(2) The conviction of a serious crime under SDCL 16-19-36 * resulted in disbarment in: In re Discipline of Hendrickson, 456 N.W.2d 140 (S.D.1990); In re Discipline of Janusz, 439 N.W.2d 559 (S.D.1989); In re Discipline of Coacher, 438 N.W.2d 549 (S.D.1989); In re Discipline of Moeckly, 401 N.W.2d 537 (S.D.1987); In re Discipline of Reutter, 379 N.W.2d 315 (S.D.1985); In re Discipline of Looby, 297 N.W.2d 487 (S.D.1980); and In re Discipline of Voorhees, 294 N.W.2d 646 (S.D.1980).
(3) Commission of one felony and 100 misdemeanors is at least as serious as the conviction of a serious crime under SDCL 16-19-36.
(4) Despite the admission of committing one felony and 100 misdemeanors, Johnson was only charged with a Class 2 misdemeanor. Should an attorney benefit twice from a very favorable plea bargain and sentence? “[T]he image and integrity of the legal profession is damaged every time a court permits an attorney guilty of such serious misconduct to practice law again.” In re Discipline of Simpson, 467 N.W.2d 921, 925 (S.D.1991) (Sabers, J., dissenting); see also Simpson, 467 N.W.2d at 925 (Wuest, J., dissenting).
(5) “The commission of “serious crimes” implicates the need to protect the public and the profession.” Hendrickson, 456 N.W.2d at 141 (emphasis added).
(6) I do not agree with the “popular concept” that there are too many lawyers in the United States today. I do agree that there are too many lawyers whose conduct indicates that they place too little value on their right to practice law. The right to practice law must not only be earned, but preserved. The conduct of Johnson clearly indicates that he placed too little value on his right to practice law. In my view, he has forfeited his right to practice law by his conduct. I would require him to re-earn the right to practice law and I vote for disbarment.
I have reviewed the facts and relevant factors in the majority opinion and compared them with Johnson I. I find no new facts, factors or real change except for the mind and vote of a single Justice.
We should stand firm on our decision in Johnson I and require Johnson to re-earn the right to practice law.

 SDCL 16-19-36. Attorney’s conviction of serious crime to be reported to Supreme Court— Definition of serious crime. The clerk of any court in this state in which an attorney is convicted of a serious crime shall within ten days of said conviction transmit a certificate thereof to the Supreme Court. The term "serious crime” shall include any felony and any lesser crime a necessary element of which, as determined by the statutory or common law definition of such crime, involves improper conduct as an attorney, interference with the administration of justice, false swearing, misrepresentation, fraud, willful failure to file income tax returns, deceit, bribery, extortion, misappropriation, theft, or an attempt or a conspiracy or solicitation of another to commit a serious crime.