Application of Herman
| Decision Date | 28 April 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 39200,39200 |
| Citation | 197 N.W.2d 241,293 Minn. 472 |
| Parties | In re Application of Theodor Herzl HERMAN for Reinstatement as an Attorney-at-Law in Minnesota. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Peter Dorsey and Curtis L. Stine, Minneapolis, for petitioner.
R. B. Reavill, Administrative Director, State Board of Professional Responsibility, St. Paul, for respondent.
Heard and considered on banc.
Petitioner was disbarred by order of this court on December 6, 1963, as a result of his conviction of the crime of swindling, Minn.St.1961, § 614.11, a felony. 1 He now petitions for reinstatement.
Petitioner was convicted of swindling in selling a fictitious contract for deed to the health, welfare, and profit sharing plan of a corporate client. He was sentenced to an indeterminate period of up to 5 years, the maximum penalty under the swindling statute. He was discharged from the State Prison on February 17, 1967, having served the full term of the sentence, less the usual good-time credits.
The swindle for which he was indicted, however, was admittedly only one of many, commencing as early as 1957, or even 1954. His victims included a legal secretary, 2 a rabbi, 3 and others who reposed trust in him other than in an attorney-client relationship. 4 To the extent that remorse is represented either by communication with victims or efforts at restitution, it is clear that petitioner's only affirmative act of that nature has been restitution, in monthly payments, to the rabbi.
The decisive inquiry on this petition, as stated in In re Application of Smith for Reinstatement, 220 Minn. 197, 200, 19 N.W.2d 324, 326 (1945), is 'whether the applicant is of such good moral character that he should be readmitted to the office of attorney and recommended to the public as a trustworthy person fit to be consulted in matters of confidence.' We conclude that this has not been established, and accordingly deny the petition.
A joint hearing on petitioner's application was conducted by the Committee on Professional Responsibility and Discipline of the Minnesota State Bar Association and the Screening Committee of the Ethics Committee of the Hennepin County Bar Association. The matter has, by stipulation, been submitted to this court on the record of that hearing and without reference to a fact-finding referee. The Board of Governors of the Minnesota Bar Association and the Hennepin County Bar Association adopted the adverse recommendations of their respective committees and, pursuant to those recommendations, have filed objections to petitioner's application for reinstatement.
Petitioner has undertaken to show that the lack of character which prompted his criminal conduct has now so changed that he has earned anew the trust and confidence once so clearly forfeited. His respected counsel attributes petitioner's prior conduct to his 'massive ego which reached such proportions as to constitute a psychological aberration,' manifested by an inordinate compulsion for materialistic success and an unwillingness to admit mistake. 5 A psychiatrist, Dr. Alan Challman, stated by affidavit that petitioner suffered from '(s)ocial maladjustment without manifest psychiatric disorder--i.e., Dyssocial behavior.' Dr. Challman did not state that petitioner was rehabilitated. Although he stated that 'there is a natural tendency for problems of this sort to diminish and sometimes completely disappear with the passage of time and the acquisition of greater personal maturity,' Dr. Challman added that 'psychiatric interviews contribute little to determining the presence or absence, or the waxing or waning, of the character weakness, due to the reliance we must place on personal reports which are naturally biased.'
Petitioner's rehabilitation as a constructive member of society has been attested by several respected persons in the community who have had a close relationship with him. Chief among them is a respected judge of the Hennepin County Municipal Court, who knew petitioner professionally when both were in private practice and extended a hand of friendship to petitioner during and after his incarceration. Together they formed Amicus, Inc., a nonprofit organization which functions, through use of volunteer friends, in assisting felons in their adjustment to society upon discharge from prison. Petitioner is now employed as a case editor for a leading lawbook publisher but devotes much of his time to the promotion of this worthy project. The judge generously credits petitioner with a substantial share of its success. He is unreserved in his support of petitioner as a man who has 'learned that there are greater goals in life than acquiring dollars' and who is 'now imbued with the spirit of trying to do something for other people, not just for himself.'
Seven persons similarly interested in petitioner from their association with him in Amicus, Inc., likewise attest to a great change in petitioner's character and personality. Three of the views expressed are typical. A prison chaplain gave his opinion that petitioner 'is a conscientious man who has been rehabilitated and is at the present time possessed of a high moral character qualifying him for a position requiring the greatest honesty and morality.' A lawyer in government service, who has known petitioner...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Tigue, A19-1603
...their most intimate and important affairs to him with complete confidence in both his competence and fidelity." In re Herman , 293 Minn. 472, 197 N.W.2d 241, 244 (1972) ; see also In re Kadrie , 602 N.W.2d 868, 870 (Minn. 1999). We consider the specific misconduct that led to violations of ......
-
In re Sand, A18-1795
...complete confidence in both his competence and fidelity.’ " In re Kadrie , 602 N.W.2d 868, 870 (Minn. 1999) (quoting In re Herman , 293 Minn. 472, 197 N.W.2d 241, 244 (1972) ). Evidence of this moral change must come from both an observed record of appropriate conduct, and from the petition......
-
IN RE REINSTATEMENT OF ANDERLEY, No. C5-91-801.
...and morality. In re Kadrie, 602 N.W.2d 868, 870 (Minn.1999) (citing In re Wegner, 417 N.W.2d 97, 98 (Minn.1987); In re Herman, 293 Minn. 472, 475, 197 N.W.2d 241, 244 (1972)). The petitioning attorney is required to provide stronger proof of good character and trustworthiness than is requir......
-
In re Reinstatement of Mose
...affairs to him with complete confidence in both his competence and fidelity.'" Kadrie, 602 N.W.2d at 870 (quoting In re Herman, 293 Minn. 472, 476, 197 N.W.2d 241, 244 (1972)). The petitioner must provide "stronger proof of good character and trustworthiness than is required in an original ......