Court Opinion

ID: 9666022
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:02:33.945193+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:22.492193
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(concurring specially).
It is rather fundamental that a case-by-case analysis be made by those of us who serve in an appellate body. It is also an old fundamental rule of law that like cases should be treated alike. Serving on this Court, it is extremely important to compare our words in the past with our words of the present.
Husby, cited in the majority opinion, prompted a dissent on my part with a citation to Morrison, now cited in the majority. In my dissent in Husby, I also quoted from Dana, now cited in the majority opinion. *726Morrison, of course, is a very old case m this Court, but it is still good law. Dana is a very recent case in this Court. Both cases take an extremely cautious viewpoint towards readmission of attorneys to practice law in this state. I could not vote for readmission in Husby, because of the extensive involvement by Husby in drugs, over a long period of time. I cannot vote for reinstatement, in this case, for essentially the same reason. Trygstad has earnestly tried to rehabilitate himself, but his application for reinstatement here is, time-wise, shortly after supervision by state authorities.
A lawyer who becomes hooked on drugs is one thing. A lawyer who sells drugs for profit is another. See In re Discipline of Strange, 366 N.W.2d 495 (S.D.1985) (Henderson, J., concurring specially, at 497). Before the “continuing proclamation” is issued by this Court, as I mentioned in my dissent in Husby, I truly believe that time should pass, by which members of this Court may determine, at a later date, if Trygstad may be “ ‘entrusted with professional and judicial matters, and to aid in the administration of justice as an attorney and as an officer of the court.’ ” Dana, 415 N.W.2d at 823 (citation omitted). For recent cases in this Court involving attorneys who possess drugs, see Strange, 366 N.W.2d 495 (S.D.1985) (Henderson, J., concurring specially, and Morgan, J., dissenting); In re Discipline of Kessler, 366 N.W.2d 499 (S.D.1985) (Henderson, J., concurring specially, and Morgan, J., dissenting); and In re Discipline of Brende, 366 N.W.2d 500 (S.D.1985) (Henderson, J., concurring specially, and Morgan, J., dissenting).
Lastly, the standard of review in these cases is succinctly set forth in Dana, 415 N.W.2d at 822. We do not disturb the referee’s findings if they are supported by the evidence; but “[o]n the other hand, we give no particular deference to a referee’s recommended sanction. The ultimate decision for discipline of members of the State Bar rests with this court.” Dana, 415 N.W.2d at 822 (citing In re Hopp, 376 N.W.2d 816 (S.D.1985)).