Disciplinary Action against Gherity, In re, C5-87-1684

Decision Date25 September 1989
Docket NumberNo. C5-87-1684,C5-87-1684
Citation446 N.W.2d 371
PartiesIn re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST David J. GHERITY, an Attorney at Law of the State of Minnesota.
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court
ORDER

By order dated May 23, 1988, this court placed the Respondent David J. Gherity on probation for two years. The discipline imposed at that time was based upon Respondent's harassment and assault on a former girlfriend, his violation of court orders for her protection, and his indifference to legal obligations reflecting adversely upon his fitness as a lawyer. Because of his bizarre and criminal conduct directed towards the former girlfriend, a condition of his probation was that he obtain a comprehensive psychological evaluation after which a detailed report of the result was to be submitted directly to the Director's office. Another condition of the probation was full cooperation with the supervising attorney and with the Director in substantiating compliance with the probation.

By further petition dated September 7, 1989, the Director alleged that the Respondent failed to comply with the conditions of probation, and in addition had failed to appear in court when ordered by a trial judge. The Director requested an extension of respondent's probation noting that the Respondent had been, in fact, practicing law while suspended for nonpayment of the attorney registration fee contrary to Rules 5.5(a) and 8.4(d), Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct.

The same day, September 7, 1989, the Director and the Respondent entered into a stipulation for dispensing with referee hearing and for discipline. In that stipulation, the Respondent waived all procedural rights afforded him by Rule 14 of the Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility. He also admitted all allegations in the petition for extension of probation with respect to violation of a court order to appear in court, with respect to practicing while suspended for nonpayment of the attorney registration fee, and for failure to live up to requirements concerning a psychological evaluation, and to follow the recommendation of his psychiatrist. He likewise admitted that he had failed to have a probation supervisor appointed to monitor his practice until May 1989.

The Director and the Respondent in the stipulation join in recommending that appropriate discipline in this case is an extension of Respondent's probation until May 23, 1991, conditioned upon continuation in psychotherapy until discharged by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT