*1 794 right independent validity depends upon validity

from the to an action for of the resulting loss of consortium from death main cause action. Bitsos v. Red Owl (D.S.D. with this language: Inc., husband Stores, F.Supp. Scott, A cause of action therefore derivative re Moberg S.D. page negligent injury N.W. sults from to one’s pointed injury spouse for the the decedent’s therein was loss of consortium act, neglect such or fault prior caused lifetime to death. decedent’s There is as would entitled him to recover if right, however, have no such to loss of consor action, death ensued. That action could had not independent, tium derivative or brought wrong- under the not have been wrongful spouse. death of one’s ful death statute. differs Hoekstra, supra. wrongful death before us as the action now remedy. statute constitutes the exclusive an complaint of the here show that action Id. It follows that Selchert’s cause ac by plaintiffs could have been maintained properly tion for loss of consortium was had not husband if death ensued. dismissed. apparently claiming that ac- Plaintiff is case is for further pro- remanded brought may

tions based on death ceedings consistent husband, wrongful of her one under the death statute and the other for loss All the Justices concur. consortium. do not believe that Judge Acting Circuit Court as a contemplated by legis- such was ever participating. adoption wrongful lature opinion death statute. We are of the brought action can un- where an statute, it

der this is an exclusive reme-

dy-

A comparison of the actions which

plaintiff under our contends authorized statutes, wrong-

constitution In the Matter of the ful death statute further discloses the DISCIPLINE OF WILLIS, legislature. parties intent of the as an Attorney at Law. receiving the benefits of these actions plaintiff are of the class. The same beneficiary this action would be a beneficiary perhaps the chief or sole brought wrongful under action Original Proceeding expressly death statute. This statute Argued

permits jury give damages may proportionate injury. think to all 110-11, (emphasis Id. at 98 N.W.2d at 684

original).

Although interspousal consortium Swanson, personal right, supra,

is a spousal for the loss of cause action

consortium is derivative in nature. See Miller, 337

Titze v. N.W.2d 176

compare Titze, 337 N.W.2d at 177

1983) (Henderson, dissenting); Budahl Associates,

v. Gordon David Hasvold, Wilson v. (1972). Thus,

S.D.

practice centers around business ventures and real estate transactions.

In the summer of Willis was called testify to grand jury. Therein, before the pertinent present situation, to the Willis testified, alia, inter using to cocaine on several occasions in 1982. April On 1984, in a criminal trial unrelated to Willis using testified to cocaine on several occasions and purchasing it on one occa- sion. granted immunity Willis was prosecution for testifying proceed- in these ings and criminally thus was not prose- cuted for his violations.

Apparently based on the above testimo- ny, Board of the State Bar of South Dakota investigation initiated an of Willis’ conduct. At a hearing held on again June using testified to cocaine four or five times and purchasing it once in 1982. Willis also testified that he did not consider himself an addict, hours, did not during use it office did not it working use while on a provide anyone did not it to else. The Findings Board entered Proposed Fact and Recommendations on June possessed

found that Willis and used co- law; caine while licensed to that 22-42-5, this violated SDCL Canon 1-102(A)(3), DR which the latter two re- spectively require lawyers to assist Zieser, R. Atty. James for Discipli- maintaining competence nary Bd. Assn, South Dakota State Bar prohibit Tyndall, complainant. for turpitude. Crew, Michael B. Crew of disciplinary Crew Board recommended formal Sioux ac- Falls, respondent. tion to this Court and that Willis be sus- pended 1) for 90 if he failed to refrain

HENDERSON, Justice. 2) drug from illicit year; use for one com- This is an proceeding concerning mitted a violation of the Code of Profes- discipline Attorney Steven C. Willis. sional that constituted year; within one graduated Steven C. Willis from the Uni- 3) failed to ser- versity of South Dakota School of Law in vice. Findings Willis acceded to the May 1976 and was admitted as a member Fact and had no objection filing of the South Dakota State Bar Association the same with this Court. Upon at that graduation, time. Willis ini- tially accounting worked for an firm and in A Formal Accusation was then filed with 1977, he became a licensed pursuant C.P.A. There- this Court to SDCL 16-19-67 after, private practice Willis entered alleging the above violations. Willis’ An- sole-practitioner. Sioux Falls as a His swer admitted the and admitted engage cocaine six times in his life using four to that Willis did not in the sale or prayed cocaine, to take finding distribution of was en- equitable appointed Honor- action. We Willis used cocaine on and a able Robert L. Tschetter as referee numerous occasions 1982 when he January hearing was held on licensed pur- law and did testimony elicited at this was es- chase cocaine on one occasion. sentially the to in all same as testified carefully listened to and con- *3 previous proceedings. three of the Willis, Attorney sidered the statements of small, impromptu cocaine use was in social represented Crew who and the rec- sought gatherings and its was not use Disciplinary ommendations of the Board. nor the main attraction. The referee en- apparent findings It from becomes the by findings similar to those made the referee, of recommendations the that the Wil- but recommended referee viewed and considered this case in suspended practice the of lis be from law deep, considering solemn manner the days suspen- of 180 —the Attorney integrity of the of be the sion to absolute and second 90 legal profession, protection of the the the upon abeyance to be held in the fulfillment public, and arrived at a which decision previously of the conditions recommended legal serve the the would best interests of the Board. profession general public. Discipline We refer to Matter of of the recommendations of 366 N.W.2d 495 Mat Strange, referee, the which are as follows: Kessler, Discipline ter 366 N.W.2d of of Discipline and Matter suspended That Steven C. Willis be of of Brende, (S.D.1985),noting period of law for a of in present the facts and circumstances the days. period That of nearly are case identical those the day peri- and that the second cases, above-cited cases. As those suspension abeyance of be held in od findings Board entered conditions as follows: sanction, specific recommended a whereas period year 1. That for a of one from the referee recommended a sanc different date of order final herein that Steven Specifically, tion. entirely Willis refrain from the illicit C. subjected has recommended Willis be drugs. use of 90-day suspension of a from sanction period year 2. That for a of one Dakota, provid of law in South order, date final of said imposed only ed sanction if Willis any Willis not commit act that would fails to fulfill the conditions enu constitute a violation of the of Code Pro- effect, merated above. is Responsibility fessional or that would recommending suspension. suspended imposition constitute proceeding, This discipline pursuant to SDCL 16-19 and L. referred to the Honorable Robert amendatory acts thereto. Tschetter, Judge, to conduct a hear- required That Steven C. Willis be findings ing on the matter and submit (1) day per of one service a referee. has recommendations as day period month this second 90 Judge accomplished. Tschetter has been direction of the Presiding guilty unprofes- of found the Circuit in which he practicing. is violating the sional conduct South Dako- above, As we noted the facts and by violating ta criminal statutes and circumstances of this case are similar to in fail- Code of Professional Kessler, Strange, We see no ing compe- Brende. to maintain the holdings reason to deviate from there by engag- tence of the our turpi- ing in in. are mindful that the saw referee “[W]e Although Judge tude. found and heard the witnesses with all the advan- gained personal from such tage that Theodo Matter contact.” CORPORATION, VALMONT CREDIT (S.D.1981); In re

sen, 303 N.W.2d Appellant, Plaintiff and (1959); Goodrich, 8, 98 N.W.2d 125 78 S.D. Schmidt, 16 N.W.2d 70 S.D. In re (1944). dispute Attorney Willis does McILRAVY, McIlravy, W.T. Marion findings are facts, the referee’s Roekel, Louis J. Van and Carol Van adopted. We need not follow Roekel, Ranch, Mc Van Farm & d/b/a recommendations, entitled to but are Appellees. Defendants and Matter Disci our careful consideration. Rensch, 333 N.W.2d

pline decision for The ultimate Bar rests with this members of the State provides: 16-19-22 Court. SDCL Considered on Briefs have sole *4 Supreme Court shall the roll the name of power to strike from any attorney and counselor at law and to suspend or to him

revoke his license practice for such time as shall

seem for cause shown.

Here, the referee considered competence of the attorney

legal profession, the fact that this

engaged

turpitude, protection public.

Holding that the referee’s recommenda- Attor- appropriate

tions are sanctions for

ney accordingly the sus-

pension from the of law for 180 suspension to be —the held and the second 90 to be abeyance upon the fulfillment of

conditions set forth above.

FOSHEIM, C.J., WOLLMAN, J., and Judge, Acting as concur.

MORGAN, dissents.

MORGAN, (dissenting). Justice

I dissent. report,

At the through speaking counsel, the court particularly advised in the

that, majority decision spite of the majority in the alluded to eases

triad of opted to stand on its

opinion, the spelled as was recommendation

previous majority in the basically the same reason

I dissent in Matter I did (S.D.1985).

Strange, 366