Gherity, In re, C5-87-1684

• Decision Date: 23 May 1988
• Docket Number: No. C5-87-1684,C5-87-1684
• Citation: 424 N.W.2d 63
• Parties: In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against David J. GHERITY, an Attorney at Law of the State of Minnesota.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 63

424 N.W.2d 63

In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against David J. GHERITY, an Attorney at Law of the State of Minnesota.

No. C5-87-1684.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 23, 1988.

ORDER

The Director of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed a petition alleging that the respondent David J. Gherity had violated certain rules of professional conduct with respect to harassing and assaulting his former girlfriend, with being in violation of a court order and thereby in contempt of court, with acting indifference to legal obligation reflecting adversely on his fitness of a lawyer. Subsequently, following interposition of an answer in which the allegations were essentially admitted, the matter was submitted to a referee who made certain recommendations to this court. Following the filing of the findings of fact and recommendations from the referee, the Director and the respondent entered into a stipulation which essentially incorporated the recommendations of the referee. The court, having examined the petition, the answer, the findings and recommendations of the referee and the stipulation of the parties, NOW ORDERS:

1. That the respondent be placed on supervised public probation for the term of two years following the date of this order. The conditions of the probation shall be:

(a) At all times respondent shall obey all federal, state and local laws and ordinances and at all times he shall abide by the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct.

(b) That at no time shall he initiate any uninvited direct or indirect conduct with Sandra Charles or Douglas Dahm;

(c) That he shall forthwith obtain a comprehensive psychological evaluation after which a detailed report of the results of said evaluation shall be submitted to the Director of Lawyers Professional Responsibility;

(d) That he shall abide by and successfully complete all conditions of his criminal probation following from the order of the Fourth Judicial District Court on April 22, 1987, upon which the charge of violation of an order for protection stemming from his conduct on January 8, 1987, was continued for dismissal. Any disposition of that charge other than by dismissal shall be conclusive evidence of a violation of disciplinary probation.

(e) That he shall abide by and successfully complete all conditions of his criminal probation following from the order of the Fourth Judicial District Court on December 4, 1987, stemming from his conduct on March 28, 1987, and any...