Application of Hanson, 37101

• Citation: 103 N.W.2d 863,258 Minn. 231
• Decision Date: 10 June 1960
• Docket Number: No. 37101,37101
• Parties: In re Application for the Discipline of Leonard A. HANSON, an attorney at law of the State of Minnesota.
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)

Page 863

103 N.W.2d 863

258 Minn. 231

In re Application for the Discipline of Leonard A. HANSON,

an attorney at law of the State of Minnesota.

No. 37101.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 10, 1960.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Grounds for disbarment include professional irresponsibility manifest by mishandling a client's funds, conversion of a client's funds, or lack of absolute integrity in conducting financial transactions with others.

2. In disciplinary proceedings, the public interest is the paramount consideration, the primary duty of the court is protection of the public, and sympathy for respondent cannot deter the court from disbarment.

Glen P. Powrie and Frank L. McDonald, Minneapolis, for petitioner.

William G. Dressel, Minneapolis, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This is a proceeding for the disbarment of a respondent admitted to practice at the bar of this court. The general principles governing such matters are, or should be, too well known to require detailed reiteration or elaboration. Every attorney at law is held to the highest standards of ethical conduct in his professional activities. It is a ground for disbarment that an attorney manifest professional irresponsibility by the mishandling of a client's financial affairs, ¹ that he convert client's funds to his own use and fail to account to the client for them upon demand, ² or that he show a lack of absolute integrity in the handling of client's funds and in conducting financial transactions with others. ³ Restitution of misappropriated funds may constitute a mitigating circumstance but is no defense.

A petition was filed with this court by the appropriate committee of the Minnesota State Bar Association on October 22, 1956, charging respondent with certain specified derelictions of his duty as an attorney of this court. The petition was duly served and an answer filed by respondent. Thereafter an amended petition was filed and an answer made thereto. The matter was referred for hearing to a retired district judge, experienced in the conduct of lawsuits. A full hearing was had at which respondent appeared and was represented by counsel. Numerous witnesses were sworn and testified and exhibits were received. Thereafter the referee made detailed findings of fact.

It would serve no purpose to review the details of the accusations against respondent, the evidence, or the findings of the referee. We have reviewed the record and are satisfied that the findings are supported by the record. Were we to make original findings in this case, they would not differ materially from those of the referee.

It is not seriously disputed that the evidence and findings show a violation by respondent of his duties as an attorney. However, the respondent left the State of Minnesota July 10, 1957, and ceased practicing law at that time. It is...