Discipline of Swanson, In re

• Decision Date: 22 May 1987
• Docket Number: No. C2-75-46057,C2-75-46057
• Parties: In re Application for the DISCIPLINE OF Carl Sigurd SWANSON, an Attorney at Law of the State of Minnesota.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 892

405 N.W.2d 892

In re Application for the DISCIPLINE OF Carl Sigurd SWANSON an Attorney at Law of the State of Minnesota.

No. C2-75-46057.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 22, 1987.

Syllabus by the Court

Petitioner, a disbarred attorney, has failed to demonstrate a change in moral attitude since the time of his admitted misconduct.

Carl Sigurd Swanson, pro se.

William J. Wernz, Director, Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility, Candice M. Hojan, Sr. Asst. Director, St. Paul, for respondent.

Heard, considered and decided by the court en banc.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner was disbarred in 1976 and seeks reinstatement to the practice of law. A panel of the Lawyers Board of Professional Responsibility recommends that the petition be denied. We agree with the panel's findings and deny the petition.

Petitioner claims to have undergone such a moral change as to render him fit now again to practice law. He has not sustained the necessary burden of proof.

After petitioner was disbarred in 1976, he petitioned this court for reinstatement. His petition was dated July 16, 1983, 2 years after his probation for the earlier offense had expired. That petition was denied by this court and an opinion filed February 17, 1984. See In re Swanson, 343 N.W.2d 662 (Minn.1984).

A disbarred attorney is not required to admit his past misdeeds nor make a rote confession of remorse and repentance as a precondition for reinstatement. However, even Alger Hiss, who claimed complete innocence of the perjury charge that led to his disbarment, was required to adduce substantial proof that he appreciated the "distinctions between right and wrong in the conduct of men toward each other * * *." In re Hiss, 368 Mass. 447, 457, 333 N.E.2d 429, 436 (1975), quoting In re Koenig, 152 Conn. 125, 132, 204 A.2d 33, 36 (1964). Here, petitioner, who has previously admitted to his misdeeds, has failed to demonstrate in a meaningful way that he "perceive[s] and reject[s] the wrongfulness of his [previous] conduct." In re Peterson, 274 N.W.2d 922, 926 (Minn.1979). The panel of the board hearing this matter summed up the present situation very well in a memorandum attached to its findings. We set forth the memorandum of the board and incorporate it herewith as part of the opinion.

The findings and memorandum of the board are undisputed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition for reinstatement is denied.

APPENDIX

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner's burden of proof to justify reinstatement to law practice is to "... establish by clear and convincing evidence that he has 'undergone such a moral change as now to render him a fit person to enjoy the public confidence and trust once forfeited.' " In re Swanson, 343 N.W.2d 662, 664 (Minn.S.Ct.1984), quoting In re Smith, 220 Minn. 197, 201, 19 N.W.2d 324, 326 (1945).

Petitioner has overcome many obstacles in his efforts to rehabilitate himself; he has won the respect, affection and support of friends, co-workers and members of the bar who have written and also testified on behalf of his petition for reinstatement. Petitioner's conduct since his release from incarceration has been unimpeachable, evidencing his strong desire to be a contributing member of society and a good employee. Indeed, notwithstanding his past misconduct, his reputation with former acquaintances and members of his community remains...