Matter of Discipline of Kessler
366 N.W.2d 499
S.D.
1985
Check Treatment

In the Matter of the DISCIPLINE OF James E. KESSLER, as an Attorney at Law.

No. 14638.

Supreme Court of South Dakota.

April 17, 1985.

366 N.W.2d 499

Argued Dec. 12, 1984.

suggestion that Strange‘s activities had any influence on any client or legal business. The finding of fault is all based upon maintaining the integrity of the Bar. I would suggest that the seven-member board can far better assess the impact of Strange‘s activities on the integrity of the Bar than can the referee, a judge residing at the opposite end of the state.

I would also note that SDCL 16-19-83 provides: “No attorney suspended for more than three months . . . may resume practice until reinstated by order of the Supreme Court.” This entails an application and hearing before the Disciplinary Board, recommendations from the Disciplinary Board and a hearing before this Court. SDCL 16-19-84. The judgment clearly provides for suspension of 180 days. In providing for automatic reinstatement at the end of 90 days, it obviously runs afoul of the above rules.

As much as I would like to temporize the penalty inflicted under this judgment, I can find no authority in our disciplinary rules to do so.

R. James Zieser, Atty. for the Disciplinary Bd. South Dakota Bar Ass‘n, Tyndall, for complainant.

David R. Gienapp of Arneson, Issenhuth & Gienapp, Madison, for respondent.

FOSHEIM, Chief Justice.

The Disciplinary Board (Board) of the State Bar of South Dakota investigated the conduct of Brookings Attorney James E. Kessler. Mr. Kessler was admitted to the practice of law on February 18, 1976. The Board found that Mr. Kessler possessed and used cocaine ten or twelve times during 1982, in violation of South Dakota criminal statutes and Canon I of the Code of Ethics. The Board entered Findings of Fact and recommended that formal disciplinary proceedings be instituted in accordance with SDCL ch. 16-19.

The same procedures were followed as in

. The same Referee was appointed. The recommendation of the referee followed that submitted in
. We adopt these recommendations also for Mr. Kessler.

WOLLMAN, J., and WUEST, Circuit Judge, Acting as a Supreme Court Justice, concur.

HENDERSON, J., specially concurs.

MORGAN, J., dissents.

HENDERSON, Justice (specially concurring).

For those reasons expressed in my special concurrence in

, I specially concur herein.

MORGAN, Justice (dissenting).

I dissent herein for all the reasons stated in my dissent in #14637,

.