*1 In the Matter of the DISCIPLINE TIDBALL, Keith A. as an
OF
Attorney of Law.
No. 17955.
Supreme Dakota. Court
Argued April July
Decided *2 Zieser, Tyndall, Disciplinary
R. James Bd. Frieberg Frieberg, Rudolph
Robert B. Peterson, Beresford, respondent. GILBERTSON, Judge. Circuit
INTRODUCTION disciplinary proceeding against This is a Tidball, Respondent a member of the State Respondent Bar of South Dakota. has ad- against allegations mitted the factual him. such, forth in an As the facts will be set manner.1 There remains for abbreviated Court, issue of a determination of discipline. appropriate manner of Disciplinary Board of the Bar of State (Board) Dakota has recommended South disbarment.
FACTS Respondent graduated from the Univer- sity of South Dakota School of Law 1966 practice and was admitted to the law adopt findings the Board. Matter filed an affidavit with this Court argument appeared personally (S.D. at oral both Discipline Dana 415 N.W.2d Bleeker, counsel. He did not contest the amend- 1987), Matter findings of the Board. Instead he ed attempted of fact J., (S.D.1991) (Henderson, spe- explain why he acted in the man- concurring.) cially Thus, ner in which he conducted himself. we July 1966. He has rization also Dakota on stated that the fees were entire career be deducted from this amount. Hall spent his engaged signed stipulation “legal it with the Pierre area. He has fees Pierre/Ft. $1,000.” practi- not to exceed general private sole setting. At *3 partnership and in a all tioner Upon receipt $10,000, Respondent herein, practicing he pertinent times was $2,500 for withheld himself as fees for alone. complained services. Hall that this inwas excess of what she autho- 1. Trust Account Violations. rized to Respondent be deducted. claimed An audit the Board established that Hall him past owed for services and for 30, 1989 between November and December representing daughter her and son at her 15, 1992, Respondent did on numerous oc- request. dispute It is clear that a existed commingle belonging funds casions as to the amount of the fee. personal clients with his own funds. Dur- ing period Respondent had fallen on Complaint. 3.The Patricia Marshall being pressed financial hard times and was 1989, In September Respondent garnishment their creditors. To avoid agreed represent wrong- Marshall on a personal attempts, placed funds in They ful death claim. entered into a writ- his trust account. He claims to have also contingent ten fee contract which entitled kept commingled along client funds with Respondent twenty-five percent fee of his funds in bank drafts in his office safe any recovery if there was no trial. The Deposits to avoid his creditors. with- prior case was settled to trial. drawals were made with such randomness 1989, In Respondent November of re- impossible that it is to tell with exactness $10,331.55 partial ceived as a payment on personal which transactions were of a na- medical expenses. bills and funeral In De- specific ture and which involved a client. 1989, Respondent paid cember himself in keep contemporaneous ledgers He failed $8,382.00 $10,331.55 lieu of fees from the or other records which would allow him to received without the consent of the client appropriate accountings
render to his or the court. upon request. clients Additional funds were received times, the Several balance his trust $62,372.91. $40,000 amount of thisOf nev- appears account fell below what to be the er went into his trust account. Marshall amount funds he held trust for made unsuccessful demands for all of her clients. His defense is that the remainder proceeds. Respon- share of settlement commingled of the client funds were dent admitted that he commingled had personal funds the bank drafts which these funds with his own funds either were his safe.2
the trust through account or the use of the bank drafts in the safe. Marshall ultimate- Complaint. 2. The Hall Glenda ly retained different counsel who also made In Respondent repre- commenced repeated upon Respondent demands sentation of Hall in a divorce action. There payment. Finally after months of de- agreement never was a written fee nor mands, remaining amount due of confirming any arrange- memorandum fee $3,877.43 was delivered to Marshall. completed by ment. The settle- action was May Respondent Respondent ment on 1991. draft- now admits that he failed to signature, promptly ed for his client’s an authoriza- account for these funds and $10,000 accept keep proper tion to as a settlement for failed to records of trust ac- concerning her share of the The autho- marital assets. count transactions this matter. questiona- using money pay 2. This defense is rendered somewhat one client’s another client’s by Respondent's ble admission that his real es- Respondent bills. did not contest the revoca- tate license was revoked the South Dakota proceedings. tion April Real Estate Commission in of 1991 for his reality Disciplin- avoid and the hurt that Respond to the Failure to office, I go my mine. did not refused Board. ary clients, pick up new did not mail and 18, 1991, asked for a the Board June On generally anything failed to do except complaint within ten the Hall response to plan my provide opportunity life to rendered. timely response was days.3 No drinking. the Board sent a second July On Rude, response, citing In re request for a point His condition to a deteriorated A re- family, attorneys concerned friends July finally received on sponse was in-patient convinced him to enter alcohol August treatment in of 1992. He success- ad- *4 November On fully completed program this and has fol- duces tecum subpoena on a mitted service ap- lowed aftercare recommendations. It produce his trust directed him to which pears that he has not had a drink since at the ledgers and bank records account being from treatment. released Respon- 5th. meeting on December Board 18, hearing On December 1992 a was meeting did not appeared at that but dent concerning held the Board the Marshall In subpoenaed records. all the produce complaint. Respondent ap- for Counsel ledg- these client large part this is because peared Respondent provid- did not and agreed Respondent exist. er sheets did not specific explanation ed no nor advance no- them ledgers client and deliver to make reported tice for his absence. His counsel 12, he failed to do. 1992. This December having difficulty corresponding dealing or hearing before He was noticed to a second with him. 3, time January on 1992 at which the Board finally produced the sub- appeared he argument on At oral before Court poenaed records. 19, 1993, April reported Respon- was Respondent’s conduct towards Board life, regained dent has control of his attempt investigate the Marshall in its He refrains from the use alcohol. Au- complaint largely the same. On was right to retain his law wishes 14, 1992, requested that he gust Board only capacity working corpo- in for a days complaint. respond within ten to the again engage ration and does not intend response No was received. practice. private in 1992, 29, again Board On October citing requested response a sanctions ANALYSIS LEGAL pursuant to In re Rude. to do so
failure forthcoming. timely response No 1. Trust Account Violations. attended, hearings Respondent he At the 1.15(a)gov- Rule of Professional Conduct of attention to his clients his lack
blamed
the use and misuse of
erns the matters of
problems such as
Board on health
and the
part:
account.
It states
the trust
real
However the
rea-
cancer treatment.
a chronic abuser
that he had become
son is
of clients or
lawyer
property
A
shall hold
subsequently de-
lawyer’s posses-
of alcohol.
persons that is in a
third
time as fol-
at that
representation
scribed his condition
with a
sion
connection
proper-
lawyer’s
lows:
own
separate from the
separate
kept
a
ty. Funds shall be
unresponsive
complaints
direct-
I was
maintained
the state where
account
Disciplinary Board
to me
ed
situated_
Com-
lawyer’s office is
way
expla-
timely respond by
did not
account funds and
plete records of such
providing copies of
by way of
nation or
kept by the law-
property
only
I
other
shall
At the time was
my records.
period
preserved for
drinking
yer
and shall be
continuing my
interested
second,
a trust
and a
appearance
mand on June
respondent's
not
first
This was
violation, on December
private repri-
account
Board. He received
before the
repre-
equitable
termination of the
cient where the
or
years after
beneficial
five
interest is in another.
sentation.
Garnishment,
(1943).
38 C.J.S.
81§
16-18-20.1.
also SDCL
See
money
An
who collects
Using client funds without
for his client holds the same
aas
trustee
displays an unfitness to
permission
client’s
and the circumstances under
which
way
in no
can be excused
practice law and
any
type
are much the
liable
same as
other
attorney’s negative cash flow. Mat
by an
Berdahl,
of trustee. Wangsness v.
(S.D.1991);
Pier,
ter
586, 13
also,
N.W.2d 293
See
SDCL
Rude,
The mere fact that
supra.4
words,
re
In
In
16-18-20.
other
there must be a
attorney’s
recovery against
trust account
basis for a
the balance
client,
attorney,
rather than the
for the
amounts held
fallen
the total of
has
below
attorney’s
client’s funds in the
trust ac
supports a conclusion of
in trust for clients
subject
garnishment.
count to
Eg
viola
misappropriation. This is a serious
Neill,
land v.
S.D.
attorney’s professional ethics
tion of an
(1954).5
public’s
likely to undermine the
which is
legal profession.
confidence
Giova
type
This
of trust account conduct
*5
California, 28 Cal.3d
nazzi v.
Bar
State
of
inis
clear violation of Rule 1.15. Such
581, 585-86,
P.2d
Cal.Rptr.
169
619
specifically
by
action was
condemned
the
Supreme
Iowa
Court in Committee on Pro
Gross,
Ethics v.
garnishment son, for his individual debts.... promptly a full shall render account- legal ing regarding property. A title in defendant is insuffi- such bare attorney’s monetary prob- saying you that would be the same as that if The fact that the lems arise decisions made out- from financial cannot make a dishonest buck in the commer- legal practice side his is of no defense or distinc- try legal profession. cial world the avoiding discipline tion in from this Court. As Dana, Discipline supra See also Matter at of of Voorhees, N.W.2d we held in Matter of (S.D.1980): suggested Nor can it be the fact that open imply 5. We do not this declares season on acting purely Voorhees in a commercial was client's trust account funds. The client still has capacity practicing rather than as a raising opportunity any the defenses he perpetrated any when he man- the offense garnishment attempt. may or she have to the grave discipline, for ner lessens the need for unprofessional that Hall was not conduct. Matter Respondent maintains dispute Kintz, (S.D. the to receive $1500 entitled 1982). Today addressed we reaffirm in disputes strongest are the his fee. Such possible 1.15(c) requires: given “if a dis- terms the admonition which Rule respective in- bar In re Rude: concerning their arises pute kept terests, dispute shall be portion The of the members Grievance Commit- dispute lawyer until the separate by the perform tee a difficult and all too often to Rule 1.15 are resolved.” The Comments task in investigating thankless charges type a situation: instructive against misconduct their Lawyers funds from third often receive lawyers. In this brother instance the lawyer’s from fee will parties which gave respon- members Committee paid. If there is a risk that the client be opportunities appear dent several be- may paying divert the funds without expla- fore the Committee and offer his fee, required remit lawyer is not regarding charges nation that had portion fee is to from which the be him, against opportunities been made However, paid. lawyer may not hold spurned. that he respon- We consider accepting the funds to coerce a client into respond dent’s failure to to the communi- disputed por- lawyer’s contention. from cations the Grievance Committee to kept funds should in trust tion of the indicative of his attitude towards the lawyer suggest should means for complaints serious nature of lodged prompt dispute, resolution of the such as (his clients). anyone Lest consider undisputed portion of arbitration. The consequences failing reply that the promptly the funds shall be distributed. singular- to the Grievance Committee are ly upon respondent, visited let this Respondent clearly pro- did not follow this *6 opinion be fair notice that similar inex- pocketed cedure but instead the $2500 respond cusable failures to will count dispute. it was in when of $1500 heavily any subsequent in formal disci- Complaint. 3. The Patricia Marshall plinary proceedings brought against an commingling The of the Marshall attorney. peril He acts at his who treats Respondent’s assets held in trust and fail a communication from the Grievance promptly pay them to ure to over Marshall with the indifference accord- Committee demands, despite repeated stand as an ad join ed an unsolicited invitation to a book club, 1.15(a), (b) ditional violation of Rule and (citations omitted). (d)(2)(d). 422-423, 221 47. 88 S.D. at N.W.2d at may conduct also be violation of Such Rude his indifference to was disbarred with SDCL 16-18-23 which makes a criminal (subsequently the Committee the Grievance attorney possession offense for an of a Board) Disciplinary weighing “heavily property pay client’s to refuse to or deliver against plea leniency that exercise the we init a reasonable time after demand. In re Rude, imposing discipline.” 88 S.D. at Rude. 425, 49, supra. 221 N.W.2d at Disciplinary Considerations. Respond Disciplin- Failure to to the 4- ary Board. purpose attorney of disci proceedings punish not the promptly plinary
The numerous failures to reply responses profession demands to remove from the Board for subpoenas proved are a violation of SDCL 16 — 19— those whose misconduct has them 54, and re sepa 16-19-55 and 16-19-56 and are a unfit to be entrusted with duties sponsibilities belonging of an discipline. rate basis for Matter Disci to the office of 378, (S.D. protect public may pline Kirby, 336 N.W.2d 380 so the of 1983). increasing wrongdoing. It is also the basis for ed from further Matter of (S.D.1977). Walker, severity appropriate discipline the of the 455 upon imposed Appropriate discipline for the commission of other acts is determined 856 pro- of the mis- serves to deter similar conduct in the the seriousness of
consideration
which,
turn,
attorney and the likelihood fession
fosters and main-
by the
conduct
miscon-
legal profession.”
of similar
tains the ethics of the
repeated instances
of
Dana,
at 380.
Kirby, supra,
duct.
Matter
(S.D.1987).
N.W.2d
“The founda-
insidious
are not unmindful
We
attorney’s relationship
tion of an
plague
which
some
alcohol abuse
effect of
legal system
is trust.”
clients and
of the bar well as
and sisters
brothers
Pier, supra, at 917.
confidence that
Public
segment
pub-
of the
unfortunately large
legal profession,
supervision
under the
efforts to re-
treatment
support
lic.6 We
Court,
keep
of this
can
its affairs
order
productive lives.
Mat
turn individuals
zealously maintained. In re
must be
Kun
455;
Walker, supra, at
Matter
ter
kle,
218 .N.W.2d
(S.D.1980).
Weisensee,
(1974), Walker,
Weisensee,
supra;
standard
Nevertheless
age
In an
N.W.2d at 722.
where
is clear.
governs our deliberations
which
profession
heavy
“slap
is under
attack
on
potential for
We are not to balance
credibility
the wrist ... would not lend
pub
against protection
rehabilitation
high
profes
ethical standards of the
public
para
duty
lic. Our
Weisensee, 296 N.W.2d
722-723
sion.”
at
encouragement
rehabilita
mount and
Voorhees,
citing
supra.
Matter of
within that context.
must
done
tion
Rude,
authority of the Board. and duties Judge, Circuit concur. Upon Respon- Imposed AMUNDSON, JJ., HENDERSON and dent. dissent. concerning discipline options Our They are are set forth in SDCL 16-19-35. GILBERTSON, Judge, for Circuit censure, placement probationary on public C.J., MILLER, disqualified. status, suspension up years to three STEELE, J., SABERS, Judge, Circuit It is our determination and disbarment. disqualified. suspended Respondent that be from period years. practice of law for a three HENDERSON, (dissenting). Justice adequately protects We feel this 16-19-31, first consider We SDCL which public allowing to estab while provides, inter alia: sobriety prove period lish a The license to law this state is again fit to al Court that he is once continuing proclamation by the Su- privilege practicing law lowed the preme that the holder is fit to Court age may Dakota. of 59 While judicial entrusted with re-entry legal profession into the make *8 matters, and to aid in the administration difficult, impossible and more is not attorney an offi- justice as an and as many continue of our members of bar cer of the court. actively practice law well after their birthday. 62nd admonition, duty Considering it is our remaining It is noted that Tidball’s The three active files his Tidball. disbar violation of to other attor- a serious practice are to be referred conduct has been ethics, professional which would cause neys compliance and full ordered with respect for the courts requirements of SDCL 16-19-78 to 80. maintenance Stanton, may present the alcoholic ability difficulties for 7. We held in Matter of 446 33, (S.D.1989) attorney requirement. to this Never- that an who to attend 37 promptly protection the client mandates this physically attend to his unable to theless applied obligation in alcohol abuse disabilities to refer the standard be client’s business has attorney. in other disabilities. The client’s matter to another The same the same as client’s legal attorneys legal in a applies pressing needs cannot be left to those disabled alco- rule recognize dis- abuse. We the nature of the limbo. hol kept separate by legal dispute shall be the law- respectability of the and the judges, yer dispute until the is resolved.” greatly suffer. Matter profession, 452, (S.D.1977); Walker, 254 N.W.2d Marshall, of Tid- Patricia another client 269, Kunkel, 218 N.W.2d In re ball’s, complained also of his denied, 1036, 95 S.Ct. (1974), 419 U.S. cert. wrong- representing her in a misconduct (1974). As detailed 521, 42 L.Ed.2d contingent A fee contract ful death case. below, only profession has the not whereby was entitled to was drawn Tidball suffered, have also suffered. his clients recovery if no twenty-five percent of the trial ensued. No trial ensued. We should using his clients' has admitted Tidball findings Disciplinary adopt these conduct permission. This funds without Board: in the and ended began November December, commingled 1992. He middle XXIV. his own funds clients’ funds with his Rule of Professional Conduct violation of finds The Board as fact that the Re- Tidball, kept a 1.15(a). According to spondent during paid December 1989 money in a amount of his clients’ sizeable $8,382.00 in lieu of fees himself from personal in his office to avoid vault $10,331.55 received, sum of without con- proceedings on a garnishee creditors from sent of either the client or the court Therefore, he established trust account. which sum was not earned nor due. garnishment. to avoid We no trust account disapproved of ethical misconduct strongly XXV. Pier, in Matter of The Board finds as fact the Re- Pier, (S.D.1991) Pier. Like and disbarred spondent properly pay failed to to his clients’ funds. Tidball’s used his Tidball client the trust funds received on behalf funds was a serious his clients’ misuse of although requested of his client to do so ethical breach. numerous times the client and the made Tidball An admission has been early client’s new as as Febru- remit funds of his promptly that he did not ary through December Hall, whereup- client, unto her one Glenda complaint filed a on she XXVI. This constitutes viola- Dakota State Bar. finds fact that the rec- The Board as 1.15(d)(2)(d) the Rules of Profes- tion of kept by ords of funds sional Conduct. client, Patsy received on behalf of his Marshall, woefully inadequate. were complaint against Tidball for Hall filed a wrongfully appropriating mishandling and settlement funds
to his own use certain XXVII. dispute arose over Tid- A divorce action. Re- finds as fact that The Board $2,500.00 attorney fee. Tidball took ball’s paid Patsy Marshall spondent has now $10,000.00 partial settle- out of a as his fee funds due her but not interest case, her in the without ment she received payment. late thereon for maintained she authorized permission. She conduct, above, reflected ad- Tidball’s $1,000.00. exceed not to a sum which was integrity, compe- versely upon reflects existed, he dispute failed to Knowing a In re fitness to law. tency, and *9 in separate a separate disputed amount Parker, (S.D.1978). 780 writing with Hall no con- account. He had Lastly, should examine Tidball’s atti- commingled we his mon- cerning his fee and against complaints made demands for tude towards money. Repeated ey with her Disci- respond to to the him and his failure produced Hall no money held in trust for reflects that 1.15(c) Board. The record plinary by Rule positive response Tidball. respond to the failed to repeatedly arises concern- Tidball provides: dispute if a “... Further- of said Board. interests, in demands portion lawful ing respective their
859
more,
additionally, process
sponsibility.
served
Based on
undisputed
these
and
facts,
service,
disciplined.
to
Tidball should be
by
him
his admission of
upon
ledgers
provide
and
records.
produce client
brings
light
This record also
another
by
initiated
particular demands were
These
operating
impo-
who was
an
14, 1991. After
Board on November
tent, deadened, crippled, and disabled mind
comply with the
repeated notices to
Sub- during
periods
in question. Again it is
Tecum, finally
January,
poena Duces
obvious that these conditions were caused
responded. This conduct was
Tidball
part,
totally, by
if not
the destructive
repeatedly
at
We have
indifference
best.
disease known as alcoholism. I totally ac-
It
such non-action.
is a viola-
denounced
knowledge that
this disease is not a de-
8.1(b)
prior Supreme
tion of Rule
and
Court
misconduct,
attorney’s
fense to an
but can
Rude,
re
pronouncements.
In
S.D.
only
mitigating
be considered as a
factor
It constitutes
N.W.2d
meting out
appropriate discipline.
when
an
grounds for disbarment in this state. We
Walker,
(S.D.1977).
In re
to have
causal relation between how this disease
clients, wrong
funds with those of his
affected Tidball and its contribution to his
fully appropriate money within a settle
major
difference in this
misconduct.
activity disrespecting the office of
ment is
discipline
that a
case and other
cases is
profession,
Attorney
At Law. And this
public,
member of the
United Sioux Tribes
rebuke,
beyond
that
owes a
above
Development Corporation,
Dakota
of South
duty
public in the
greater
requested that Tid-
has come forward and
wrongdoing.
at
future from such
Walker
represent it
allowed to continue to
ball be
Discipline of Bergren,
455. Matter
request
This
has
as its in-house counsel.
(S.D.1990).
notwithstanding
entity’s
been made
past
knowledge of Tidball’s
miscon-
full
AMUNDSON,
(dissenting).
Justice
organization
represented
has
duct. This
services,
stipulated
it needs
This
that his conduct
this court that
Tidball’s
account,
handling
the work is irre-
handling
experience
his trust
client’s settle-
responding
placeable,
to the cor-
the firm has confidence
Tid-
proceeds,
ment
expertise
has
respondence
requests
production
ability,
and Tidball
ball’s
Finally,
represents
disciplinary
fell below that
Indian affairs.
from
board
*10
help the
always
“has
there to
required by the Code of Professional Re- Tidball
been
poor
poverty
great
stricken without
pasture
out to
years or,
for three
in es-
compensation.”
sence,
This
concern for
could ex-
legal
end his
career. On the other
problems
financial
plain part
hand,
of Tidball’s
if the record was such that no efforts
record.
in this
as evidenced
had been made to
bondage
overcome his
booze, I would not hesitate to vote for a
recognized on a
This court has
number of
punishment.
more severe
Therefore,
in
past
in the
that
occasions
case,
this
it is not clear that an uncondition-
purpose
disciplinary proceedings
the
al
three-year suspension
required
or
punish
not to
but to remove from the
needed.
profession
attorneys
those
whose miscon-
proved
duct has
unfit to
them
be entrust-
Bleeker,
In re
responsibilities
ed with duties and
be-
(S.D.1991),
this court
issued a six-
longing
to the office of an
so
suspension
month
where the referee found
public may
protected
that the
from the keep
failed to
proper records
wrongdoing.
further
Disbarment is war-
assets, commingled
of estate
client funds
protec-
ranted
it is clear that the
when
own,
keep
with his
failed to
clients’ funds
society requires
tion of
such action or
separate,
safe and
guilty
and was
of con-
respect
the
where
maintenance
structive fraud.
judges
respectability
courts and
or the
Also, the Board in this case relies on the
legal profession
itself demands such case of Giovanazzi v. State Bar
Cali-
action.
fornia,
(Cal.1980),
We must in mind that the real and brings light review Giovanazzi that vital issue to be determined disbar- appropriate discipline for such serious proceedings ment is whether or not the conduct thirty-day was an actual suspen- accused, from the whole of the evidence 586-87, sion. Cal.Rptr. Id. 169 at 619 P.2d submitted, person proper is a fit and to at 1010. permitted to continue in the dealing involving When with cases of law. alcoholism, disease of this court should Weisensee, 544, 546, In re discipline accomplish fashion the follow- (1) ing objectives: protect (2) public; goes saying rehabilitation; It encourage (3) without alcoholism is fashion only not a defense but can be considered as discipline protect all concerned when Walker, mitigating supra. factor. Fur- dealing disease, with this most difficult ther, acknowledged court has this yet sight not public perception lose of a past appropriate that rehabilitation is merely swept that the matter was under type proceeding. consideration this rug or attempting white-washed. In goals, attain these I impose
We are not unmindful that this is a
laudable
would
following discipline
impression
case of first
in the area of
this case:
attorney discipline in this state and we
suspended
That Tidball be
for three
sincerely hope
that will serve as an
years,
ninety days
with all but
respondent
incentive to this
to continue
suspension
abeyance
held
on the fol-
at rehabilitation and as an
lowing conditions:
efforts
adequate
public
measure to
(1)
only
per-
He shall
be authorized to
against a recurrence of the harm which
form
work for United Sioux
delinquencies.
was caused
Development
of South Dakota
Tribes
Walker,
(emphasis sup-
As this case I comes before this (2) agree appropriate discipline reopen cannot that the He shall not his office for the place is to fifty-nine-year-old attorney general practice the full of law for *11 suspension and shall be term procedures follow the
required to af- to SDCL 16-19-86 16-19-84
SDCL years from the effective date
ter three into going back
of this decision before general practice. use of alco-
(3) refrain from the He shall beverages or controlled sub-
holic at all times.
stances program
(4) with his He shall continue includes, but is not
rehabilitation which to, meetings. at AA
limited attendance
(5) remaining his three He shall refer attorneys. to other
active files $1,500.00
(6) refund to Glenda He shall
Hall. pro-
(7) pay the costs of this He shall six months from the
ceeding within of the decision.
date allowing right limited to be em-
By this living, attorney in
ployed and earn a twilight his career will be allowed debts, family, pay his con-
provide for his rehabilitation, and at the on
tinue protected. public has been
same time discipline be difficult proposed
This would merely sweeping under the
to construe attorney’s white-washing this mis-
rug or
deeds. REALTY,
CENTURY ASSOCIATED Appellee,
Plaintiff
v. Defendant, HOFFMAN, Sr., L.
James Inc., Company, Dakota
Isis
Corporation, Defendant and
Appellant.
No. 17787. Dakota.
Supreme Court of South 8, 1992. on Briefs Oct.
Considered July
Decided