In Re the Discipline of Willis
Lead Opinion
This is an original proceeding concerning the discipline of Attorney Steven C. Willis.
Steven C. Willis graduated from the University of South Dakota School of Law in May 1976 and was аdmitted as a member of the South Dakota State Bar Association at that time. Upon graduation, Willis initially worked for an accounting firm and in 1977, he became а licensed C.P.A. Thereafter, Willis entered private practice in Sioux Falls as a sole-practitioner. His practice centers around business venturеs and real estate transactions.
In the summer of 1983, Willis was called to testify before the grand jury. Therein, as pertinent to the present situation, Willis testified, inter alia, to using cocaine on several occasions in 1982. On April 5, 1984, in a criminal trial unrelated to Willis, Willis testified to using cocaine on several occasions and purchasing it on one occasion. Willis was granted immunity from prosecution for testifying in these proceedings and thus was not criminally prosecuted for his violations.
Apparently based on the above testimony, the Disciplinary Board of the State Bar of South Dakota initiated an investigation of Willis’ conduct. At a Disсiplinary Board hearing held on June 20, 1984, Willis again testified to using cocaine four or five times and purchasing it once in 1982. Willis also testified that he did not consider himself an addict, did not use it during office hours, did not use it while working on a case, and did not provide it to anyone else. The Disciplinary Board entered Findings of Fact and Proposed Recommendations on June 29, 1984. The Disciplinary Board found that Willis possessed and used cocaine while licensed to practice law; that this violated
A Formal Accusation was then filed with this Court pursuant to
We refer to Matter of Discipline of Strange,
This case, an original proceeding, was referred to the Honorable Robert L. Tschetter, Circuit Judge, to conduct a hearing on the matter and submit findings and recommendations as a referee. This has been accomplished. Judge Tschetter has found Attorney Willis guilty of unprofessional conduct by violating the South Dakota criminal statutes and by violating the Cоde of Professional Responsibility in failing to maintain the integrity and competence of the legal profession and by engaging in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude. Although Judge Tschetter found that Willis did not engage in the sale or distribution of cocaine, a finding was entered that Attorney Willis used cocaine on numerous occasions during 1982 when he was licensed to practice law and did purchase cocaine on one occasion. Judge Tschetter carеfully listened to and considered the statements of Willis, Attorney Crew who represented Willis, and the recommendations of the Disciplinary Board. It becomes аpparent from the findings and recommendations of the referee, that the referee viewed and considered this case in a deep, solemn manner considering the rights of Attorney Willis, the integrity of the legal profession, the protection of the public, and arrived at a decision which would serve the best interests of the legal profession and the general public.
We adopt the recommendations of the referee, which are as follows:
That Steven C. Willis be suspended from the practice of law for a period of 180 days. That 90 days of this period be absolute and that the second 90 day period оf suspension be held in abeyance on conditions as follows:
1. That for a period of one year from the date of final order herein that Steven C. Willis refrain entirely from the illicit use of drugs.
2. That for a period of one year from the date of said final order, Steven C. Willis not commit any act that would constitute а violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility or that would constitute grounds for imposition of a discipline pursuant toSDCL 16-19 and acts amendatory thereto.
3. That Steven C. Willis be required to givе one (1) day of public service per month during this second 90 day period at the direction of the Presiding Judge in the Circuit in which he is practicing.
As we noted above, the facts and circumstances of this case are similar to Strange, Kessler, and Brende. We see no reason to deviate from our holdings therein. “[W]e are mindful that the refereе saw and heard the witnesses with all the advan
The Supreme Court shall have sole power to strike from the roll the name of any attorney and counselor at law and to revoke his licensе or to suspend him from the practice for such time as shall seem just for cause shown.
Here, the referee considered the rights of Willis, the integrity and competence of the legal profession, the fact that this attorney engaged in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude, and the protection of the рublic. Holding that the referee’s recommendations are appropriate sanctions for Attorney Willis, we accordingly adopt the suspension from the practice of law for 180 days — the first 90 days of suspension to be absolute and the second 90 days to be held in abeyance upon the fulfillment of the сonditions set forth above.
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting).
I dissent.
At the hearing on the referee’s report, the Disciplinary Board, speaking through its counsel, particularly advised the court that, in spite of the majority decision in the triad of eases alluded to in the majority opinion, the Board opted to stand on its previous recommendation as was spelled out in the majority opinion.
I dissent for basically the same reason that I did in Matter of Discipline of Strange,