Court Opinion

ID: 9728611
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:12:31.35353+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:50.195674
License: Public Domain

SHERAN, Chief Justice
(concurring in part, dissenting in part).
I dissent from the opinion of the majority because in my view:
1. It was Judge McDonough’s duty to disclose his financial dealings with Neilsen and affirmatively establish that the debt had been satisfied, forgiven or transferred before the Neilsen estate was closed.
2. The treatment given to and accepted by Judge McDonough from the First National Bank of Stillwater was preferential. I agree completely with the Board’s assessment of this aspect of the case.
3. Judge Stahler’s findings as to the Costello telephone calls are sustained by clear and convincing evidence. It is not simply a case of one man’s word against another’s. Mr. Costello was a disinterested witness. His reliability was established. He knew Judge McDonough well enough to be certain in his mind that the calls in question came from him. The fact finder in this case is an experienced, fair and highly competent district judge. He heard the conflicting testimony; assessed the response to cross-examination; and, most important of all, he observed the witnesses whose testimony was in conflict. Of his findings of fact in an extremely complicated and demanding case the only one rejected by the majority opinion is this critical one. I would confirm it.
I agree with this statement on page 62 of the majority opinion:
“Retirement is an appropriate sanction from the Board’s point of view, given that body’s findings on the Neilsen note, preferential treatment from the First National Bank, and anonymous phone calls to Costello.”
If the majority is right in rejecting these findings, I believe the sanctions imposed are acceptable so long as it is clearly understood that repetition of incidents like those found sustained by clear and convincing evidence will not be tolerated in the future.