Discipline of Coacher, Matter of, 16298

• Decision Date: 12 April 1989
• Docket Number: No. 16298,16298
• Citation: 438 N.W.2d 549
• Parties: In the Matter of the Discipline of William H. COACHER as an Attorney at Law.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

Page 549

438 N.W.2d 549

In the Matter of the Discipline of William H. COACHER as an Attorney at Law.

No. 16298.

Supreme Court of South Dakota.

Argued Feb. 15, 1989.

Decided April 12, 1989.

William H. Coacher, pro se at argument.

Charles F. Carbiener, Vermillion, for respondent.

R. James Zieser, Tyndall, for Disciplinary Bd. of the State Bar of South Dakota.

PER CURIAM.

William H. Coacher (Coacher), admitted to the practice of law in 1956, pleaded nolo contendere to one count of grand theft by embezzlement, under SDCL 22-30A-10 (Embezzlement of Property Received in Trust), and SDCL 22-30A-17, which provides that grand theft is a Class 4 felony. ^* Coacher was sentenced on June 7, 1988, to serve eight years in the State Penitentiary, six of which were to be suspended on condition that he make restitution to four clients:

Coacher served time in the State Penitentiary pursuant to the circuit court sentence. Restitution was ordered, per judgment of the circuit court by its June 7, 1988 Judgment of Conviction, for the following incidents, each pertaining to embezzlement:

1) Coacher agreed to hold proceeds from the sale of Ruth Simon's home in his trust account, to enable her to be admitted to a Good Samaritan Home at government expense, such proceeds to be given to her children after her death;

2) Coacher was sent $1,000 by Jack Schaff, to pay Schaff's mother's medical bills, which Coacher did not do;

3) Coacher collected $1,066.61 in V.A. life insurance for Maxine Hudelson but failed to give it to the beneficiaries; and

4) Similar to 1), in that $2,972.12, from the sale of William Burke's home, was put in Coacher's trust account to enable Burke to obtain medicaid and the amount was dissipated.

Coacher was charged with embezzlement regarding the Schaff incident only. The Disciplinary Board recommends disbarment. Coacher admitted the above facts in his response to the Board's report, but requested that any hearing on disbarment or suspension be continued until "Respondent is released from parole" or fully pardoned. He filed a written response to the Report and Recommendation of the Disciplinary Board through Attorney Charles F. Carbiener, Vermillion, South Dakota, the text of which is that restitution, as required by circuit court judgment, was made and that he expressed feelings of remorse over his past actions. He has, apparently, paid the ordered restitution. This Court held a formal hearing on February 15, 1989, at the State Capital, with Coacher appearing pro se, whereat he admitted many acts of ethical impropriety and expressed great remorse. He indicated, inter alia, that judgments were entered against him and that he "might be" facing other litigation.

Our duty and obligation to the public is clear. We must disbar Coacher as per our earlier holding in In re Kunkle, 88 S.D. 269, 218 N.W.2d 521 (1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1036, 95 S.Ct. 521, 42 L.Ed.2d 312 (1974). We must protect the public from further wrongdoing. In addition to the...