Application of Christianson

• Decision Date: 05 May 1972
• Docket Number: Nos. 8520,8761,s. 8520
• Citation: 202 N.W.2d 756
• Parties: Application of Elmo T. CHRISTIANSON For Reinstatement To the Bar to the State of North Dakota. In the Matter of the Application For Disciplinary Action Against Elmo T. CHRISTIANSON.
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Page 756

202 N.W.2d 756

Application of Elmo T. CHRISTIANSON For Reinstatement To the Bar to the State of North Dakota. In the Matter of the Application For Disciplinary Action Against Elmo T. CHRISTIANSON.

Nos. 8520, 8761.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

May 5, 1972.

Syllabus by the Court

1. A court which has the power to suspend or disbar an attorney also has the power to reinstate, upon proper and satisfactory proof that, as a result of his discipline, he has become a fit and proper person to be intrusted with the office of an attorney.

2. Upon an application for reinstatement, the mere formal proof of good moral character required upon an original application for admission is not enough; but the proof must be of a satisfactory character, and of sufficient weight to overcome the former adverse judgment as to the applicant's character.

3. For the reasons stated in the opinion, the application for reinstatement is denied.

Bruce Bair, Mandan, for Grievance Commission of the Supreme Court.

Elmo T. Christianson, pro se.

NORBERT J. MUGGLI, District Judge.

In a disciplinary proceeding on February 13, 1970, as reported in 175 N.W.2d, page 8, this Court suspended the certificate of admission to the bar of the State of North Dakota of the respondent Elmo T. Christianson. This decision further provided that the respondent Christianson could apply for reinstatement of his certificate of admission to the bar one year later upon a showing that restitution of $300 was made to one Vincent J. Boehm and upon a showing that he is otherwise qualified to be reinstated as a member of the bar of the State of North Dakota.

The respondent, Elmo T. Christianson, did on March 2, 1971, file with this Court his petition for reinstatement to the bar of this State. This petition was referred to the grievance commission of this Court who, after investigation, filed its findings, conclusions and recommendations on May 17, 1971. The grievance commission concluded that the respondent had failed to sustain the burden of establishing the averments of his application for reinstatement by clear and convincing evidence and also concluded that it affirmatively appeared that the respondent was not qualified to be reinstated. The grievance commission recommended that the suspension of the respondent's certificate of admission be continued indefinitely. This Court then set October 5, 1971, for a hearing on the respondent's application for reinstatement.

Before this scheduled hearing for reinstatement, a formal complaint containing findings and recommendations of the grievance commission on matters not previously presented to this Court was received. After receiving such complaint this Court directed the filing of such formal complaint and directed service of the summons and complaint upon the respondent. This Court then continue the hearing on reinstatement to its December 1971 term.

The respondent, on October 29, 1971, then filed an answer to the complaint raising certain issues, whereupon the Court on November 16, 1971, then ordered that the petition for reinstatement (No. 8520) and the issues raised by the answer to the formal complaint (No. 8761) be referred to the Honorable Roy A. Ilvedson as a referee for the purpose of taking testimony, and directed that such referee prepare findings of fact and recommendation based upon the evidence adduced at such hearing.

On February 3, 1972, testimony was taken before the Honorable Roy A. Ilvedson acting as referee, and on March 16, 1972, the referee filed with this Court his findings of fact and conclusions, along with his recommendation that the respondent be reinstated as a member of the bar.

This Court then gave notice that a hearing would be had before this Court on April 4, 1972, on both the petition for reinstatement and the new complaint, and at which time this Court would hear arguments for and against the adoption of the referee's report, findings, conclusions and recommendations.

These two matters were then heard before this Court on April 4, 1972. The respondent, Elmo T. Christianson, with permission of the Court appeared for himself, and the grievance commission of the Supreme Court appeared by Bruce B. Bair, attorney at law, Mandan, North Dakota.

The Court then heard arguments by Mr. Bair on behalf of the grievance commission and by Mr. Christianson for himself as respondent. The Court then reviewed the entire file and took judicial notice of the prior actions of this Court involving this respondent which included the following:

1. Its action on September 18, 1956, suspending the respondent's license to practice law in this State for the reasons set forth in the complaint then filed, and its later action on May 16, 1957, reinstating such license; and

2. Its action on February 13, 1970, reported in 175 N.W.2d 8, suspending the respondent's certificate of admission to the of the State of North Dakota for the reasons set forth in such opinion.

Since both the petition for reinstatement and the new complaint involve the present fitness and qualifications of the respondent to practice law in our State, they will be considered together in these proceedings.

The new complaint sets out four causes, all of which the respondent either denied or attempted to explain. The first cause involves certain delays nad non-action on the part of the respondent in the handling of a divorce action. The respondent was retained by one Cecilia Allery on June 25, 1967, to handle her divorce action and was paid $150 at the time. The respondent prepared the divorce papers and delivered them to the sheriff for service on July 7, 1967. The defendant could not be found. Since Mrs. Allery was receiving welfare aid at the time, the welfare office began to press the respondent for action. In November of 1968 respondent again delivered the summons and complaint to the sheriff for service, but again the defendant could not be found. No further action was taken and in January of 1970 the welfare board asked respondent to refund the $150 fee. The respondent did refund their $150 fee in February of 1971.

The second cause involved delays in the probate of an estate. Sarah Oliver Gelder died in December of 1968. The respondent was...