Daly, In re

• Decision Date: 16 July 1971
• Docket Number: No. 42174,42174
• Citation: 189 N.W.2d 176,291 Minn. 488
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: In re Jerome DALY.

Page 176

189 N.W.2d 176

291 Minn. 488

In re Jerome DALY.

No. 42174.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 16, 1971.

Jerome Daly, pro se.

Kenneth M. Anderson, Herbert Davis, Minneapolis, for respondent.

Heard and considered en banc.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This is a disciplinary proceeding conducted in accordance with the rules of this court governing professional responsibility of members of the bar of Minnesota admitted and licensed to practice as attorneys at law.

Upon our decision in In re Daly, 284 Minn. 567, 171 N.W.2d 818, adjudging respondent, Jerome Daly, to be guilty of concontempt of this court and ordering his temporary suspension from the practice of law, an investigation into his fitness and competence to continue to practice before courts of this state was made by the State Board of Law Examiners. ¹ Thereupon, a petition and accusation filed by the board for respondent's disbarment, together with his answer, were, as authorized by our rules, ² referred to the Honorable Donald C. Odden, Judge of the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, who was appointed as referee to hear and report the evidence. ³ Following an 8-day evidentiary hearing and submission of an 808-page verbatim transcript of the testimony, the referee, in compliance with the rules and the order of appointment, filed comprehensive findings of fact, conclusions, and a recommendation that respondent be disbarred. We have examined the evidence with care and are constrained to adopt the fully supported findings of the referee and to order respondent disbarred for numerous acts of unprofessional conduct.

As covered in detail in In re Daly, Supra, respondent, without justifiable explanation or excuse, intentionally and defiantly disregarded an order of this court prohibiting him and a justice of the peace from further proceedings in a declaratory judgment action, then pending before the justice of the peace, which was obviously, and for numerous reasons outlined in our decision, beyond the limits of jurisdiction of a justice of the peace. In finding respondent in contempt and ordering his temporary suspension from practice because of the extraordinary nature of his professional behavior, we recognized that a conviction of contempt of court ordinarily does not reflect on an attorney's fitness, trustworthiness, or competence. Accordingly, we authorized respondent to apply for limited exceptions to the suspension order so that he might complete matters pending in his office. Further, we stated:

'We reserve jurisdiction of this matter to permit further proceedings, the object of which will be to determine whether this contumacious conduct of Jerome Daly is or is not an isolated instance of impropriety. * * *

'* * * Final resolution of the matter must depend on whether the acts of this attorney are a part of a persistent and continuing effort to defy the authority of the courts and in part on whether there is any disposition to amend the contumacious behavior demonstrated.' 284 Minn. 568, 571, 171 N.W.2d 820, 823.

Contrary to respondent's fanciful assertions that these proceedings are a conspiracy by banks and their directors to put an end to his persistent attacks upon the constitutionality of the monetary system of the United States, disciplinary proceedings, including this one, are not designed to punish an attorney or to prevent him from, in good faith, espousing a legal cause, however unpopular or seemingly untenable, but rather to discharge this court's responsibility to protect the public, the administration of justice, and the profession by imposing disciplinary sanctions, including removal from practice, upon those attorneys who, after careful investigation, proper notice, and hearing, are found to have demonstrated that they do not possess the 'qualities of character and the professional competence requisite to the practice of law.' Baird v. State Bar of Arizona, 401 U.S. 1, 7, 91 S.Ct. 702, 706, 27 L.Ed.2d 639, 647. See, also, Law Students Civil Rights Research Council, Inc. v. Wadmond, 401 U.S. 154, 91 S.Ct. 720, 27 L.Ed.2d 749; Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232, 77 S.Ct. 752, 1 L.Ed.2d 796; Hallinan v. Committee of Bar Examiners, 65 Cal.2d 447, 453, 55 Cal.Rptr. 228, 233, 421 P.2d 76, 81. The United States Supreme Court and all courts recognize that--

'* * * (t)he power of disbarment is necessary for the protection of the public in order to strip a man of the implied representation by courts that a man who is allowed to hold himself out to practice before them is in 'good standing' so to do.' Theard v. United States, 354 U.S. 278, 281, 77 S.Ct. 1274, 1276, 1 L.Ed.2d 1342, 1345.

Although disciplinary proceedings have been described in the context of the requirement of procedural due process as 'adversary proceedings of a quasi-criminal nature' (In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544, 551, 88 S.Ct. 1222, 1226, 20 L.Ed.2d 117, 122), we have noted that they are not considered in the same light as an ordinary adversary action but are proceedings sui generis:

'A disciplinary proceeding is not the trial of an action or suit between adverse parties, but an investigation or inquiry by the court into the conduct of one of its officers in order to determine his fitness to continue as a member of his profession.' In re Application for Discipline of Peterson, 260 Minn. 339, 344, 110 N.W.2d 9, 13.

Since lawyers are granted a monopoly to perform legal services for hire, it is self-evident that they, like all monopolies, must be subject to strict regulation with respect to admission to practice and to the performance of professional services, as well as to public accountability for adherence to the rule of law, canons of ethics, and standards of professional responsibility. ⁴ The formulation of ethical principles and standards of professional conduct, as well as the procedures for enforcement, is, and must be, under our constitutional system, the responsibility of the judicial branch of government. The ultimate determination governing admission, supervision, and discipline of attorneys in this state, including their removal from practice before our courts, is vested in this court. In re Disbarment of Tracy, 197 Minn. 35, 266 N.W. 88, 267 N.W. 142.

The ancient and fundamental standards of professional conduct are well established. These standards are taught as a required subject in the law schools of this state. Questions concerning them are included in examinations for admission to practice. They are set forth in the Canons of Professional Ethics and, as recently revised, in the Code of Professional Responsibility adopted by the American Bar Association and by this court. ⁵ An in all disciplinary proceedings, the canons, and now the new code, encompass the standards by which respondent's conduct must be judged in determining his fitness to continue in the practice of law.

An overall view of the voluminous record compels us to agree with the referee's conclusions that respondent--

'* * * has failed to conduct himself in a manner consistent with the ethical principles of the legal profession, has deliberately and intentionally disregarded those ethical principles in the conduct of his practice, has taken unconscionable advantage of his position as a lawyer of this state, has flaunted his disregard for the authority of Judges, Courts, Statutes, and the ethical rules governing conduct required of attorneys, and has offered no persuasive evidence or excuse for his conduct.'

Moreover, given every opportunity to explain or justify alleged misconduct as not 'a persistent and continuing effort to defy the authority of the courts' (284 Minn. 571, 171 N.W.2d 823) but occasioned by inadvertence, misconception of professional responsibilities, or compelled by circumstances not of his making or beyond his capacity to control, respondent exhibited indifference to these proceedings and undertook to use the hearing before the referee as a forum for expounding his own views concerning the constitutionality of the Federal Reserve System and the validity of Federal Reserve notes, as well as the constitutionality of our Rules of Civil Procedure and those governing the conduct and discipline of attorneys. By his conduct in representing himself before the referee and upon oral argument before this court, respondent has, at best, demonstrated a perverted misconception of the role and function of an attorney and the necessity for strict regulation ad accountability of attorneys or, at worst, a deliberate and defiant rejection of any judicial control of his professional activities. ⁶ While such a misconception, if it exists, provokes our perplexity and commiseration, it, no less than respondent's intentional, persistent, and habitual misconduct as found by the referee, and his declared intention before this court hat he will continue to disobey any court orders or rules governing his professional conduct which he regards as harsh, oppressive, or unconstitutional in the future, leaves us no choice but to order his disbarment.

The ultimate factual findings of the referee, supported by specific and detailed instances and ample evidence, are, in essence, that respondent has 'persistently and perniciously' used his position as a licensed attorney, for himself and as counsel for others, to subvert the processes of justice by (1) initiating unfounded lawsuits for the purposes of harassing numerous named banking institutions, public officials, and private persons, and to avoid legal obligations of himself and his clients, thereby depriving parties involved of property to which they were lawfully entitled, causing them very substantial expense, and occupying the time and efforts of courts in nearly all levels of jurisdiction; ⁷ (2) by advancing in such cases by 'immaterial and unnecessarily inflammatory' allegations his personal theory of the unconstitutionality of the monetary system of the United States; ⁸ (3) by continuing to espouse his theory in...