*1
537
ment; they
genuine
negligence
contend that there are
Zeebs’
claim
can only
be
fact as to
Han-
issues material
whether
jury.
resolved
Consequently, the trial
negligent
del was
of his
maintenance
court
in granting
erred
summary judg-
agree.
fences. We
15-6-56(c); Wilson,
ment. SDCL
supra.
Summary judgment should be rendered
judgment
court
trial
is re-
genuine
if
there is no
issue as to
versed.
moving
fact
party
material
and the
is enti
judgment
tled to
as a matter of law.
FOSHEIM,
Justice,
Retired
15-6-56(c);
Agri
American Indian
participating.
Consortium,
cultural Credit
Inc. v.
MILLER, J., not having been a
Inc.,
Livestock,
Pierre
Inc.,
(S.D.1985);
Deering, Myers N.W.2d Ass’n, Co-op
v. Lennox
(S.D.1981); Ry. v. Wilson Great Northern
Co., (1968). S.D. N.W.2d 19 neg negligence contributory Issues of In the Matter of the DISCIPLINE OF ligence ordinarily questions of fact August MOECKLY as an the and should be resolved trial Attorney at Law. Myers, the normal manner. supra; Wil No. 14802. son, supra. Supreme Court of South Dakota. Furthermore, the owner of do Original Proceeding duty protect
mestic animal has a individ Argued Jan. 1987. uals the hazard of livestock on the danger highway if the should have been Decided Feb. 1987. Clark, reasonably anticipated. Pexa v. (1970);
S.D. Eixenber
ger Exchange, v. Belle Livestock Fourche S.D. Whether anticipated owner the could have that stray would onto the is a highway
animals
question jury. of fact for the Id.
Here, clearly Zeebs issue have raised the anticipated
of whether Handel could have high- stray cattle would onto the
way. Two of Zeebs’ witnesses claim that got pasture
Handel’s cattle out of the on day again accident morning accident. If that is
case, anticipate one could the cattle get if not again
would out the fence was
fixed, especially if the fence had been
repaired replaced years. for a number of
Meanwhile, Han- other claim that witnesses gotten
del’s cattle have never out of
pasture highway. onto the Such
flicting goes to testimony the heart *2 Zieser, Disciplinary ney,
R. James Bd. interference with the administration swearing, of misrepresenta- false Ass’n, Tyndall, South Dakota State Bar for tion, fraud, willful failure to file income complainant. returns, deceit, extortion, bribery, appearance respondent Moeckly. for or conspiracy a or solicitation of another to commit a serious crime. SABERS, Justice. appendix The to SDCL ch. 16-18 sets Action Responsibili- forth the of Code Professional original proceeding concerning This is an states, ty lawyers. lawyer Canon “a August discipline of should avoid even the of Moeckly (Moeckly) under 16-19-36. impropriety.” provides fessional EC 9-2 in Disciplinary part, “public
The Dako- in lawyers Board South confidence law and by irresponsible improper be eroded or (Board) ta Bar Association recommends dis- lawyer[.]” conduct of a DR 9- See also: not, Moeckly find barment. We mind, 101. With these considerations in time, engage in of this fit to turn to the facts at bar. law and we therefore enter an order of disbarment. Decision Moeckly felony has been convicted of a
Facts
which constitutes a serious crime under
SDCL 16-19-36. “Conviction of a serious
Moeckly
Sep-
was admitted
the bar
crime,
any by-
and the willful violation of
practiced
tember
1974. He
law in Brit-
law, rule,
regulation
adopted by
which is
ton, South Dakota and also worked on a
approved by
the State Bar and
part-time
magistrate.
as a
trained
basis
law
Court,
preme
are forms of misconduct
6, 1984,
jury
On October
a
of the United
support disciplinary proceed-
which will
(D.Minn.3d)
States District Court
returned
ings.”
Reutter,
Matter
379 N.W.2d
of
Moeckly
a
which
verdict
convicted
of
(S.D.1985)citing
Looby,
Matter of
(S.D.1980).
(2)
(1)
perjury,
two
counts
one
count
cocaine,
import
(1)
spiracy
and one
count
‘As officers of the
charged
with
obedience of the laws
conspiracy
of
with intent to distribute co-
of this state and the United States. The
caine. He was sentenced to serve seven
intentional violation of those laws ...
$10,000
years
prison
pay
in
a
fine.
lawyer
public
a
tend to lessen
confidence
Eighth
Appeals
Circuit Court of
af-
legal profession.
Obedience
firmed this decision. See: United States v.
exemplifies respect
law
for the law. To
(8th Cir.1985)
Moeckly,
HENDERSON, (specially Justice concur-
ring).
Per this Court’s Order of December
1984, Moeckly suspended from the provides: provides:
1. SDCL 16-19-37 2. SDCL 16-19-36 any attorney If has been seri- convicted of a any clerk of court in this state which 16-19-36, ous crime as defined in § attorney an is convicted of a serious crime shall immediately preme Court shall enter an order days within ten of said conviction transmit a attorney, suspending the whether the conviction Supreme certificate thereof to the Court. The plea from a or nolo conten- resulted dere or from verdict after and term "serious crime” shall include otherwise, trial or lesser crime a element of regardless pendency appeal, of an or com- disciplinary pro- pending of a mon law definition of such involves im- ceeding Upon good to be commenced such conviction. proper attorney, conduct as an interference shown, cause the Court set the administration of false swear- restraining attorney aside such order engaging fraud, ing, misrepresentation, willful failure to appears of law when it returns, deceit, bribery, extor- file income tion, justice to do. An in the interest of suspending so order or a from the of law an conspiracy or solicitation of another to commit pursuant to this section shall constitute a sus- a serious crime. purpose pension 16-19-82, inclusive, unless the §§ 16-19-74 shall otherwise order. Court