Howe, Matter of

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
Writing for the CourtPEDERSON; ERICKSTAD; PAULSON
Citation257 N.W.2d 420
PartiesIn the Matter of the Application for Disciplinary Action against Henry H. HOWE, Jr., a Member of the Bar of the State of North Dakota. GRIEVANCE COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. Henry H. HOWE, Jr., Respondent. Civ. 9344.
Decision Date18 August 1977

Page 420

257 N.W.2d 420
In the Matter of the Application for Disciplinary Action
against Henry H. HOWE, Jr., a Member of the Bar of
the State of North Dakota.
GRIEVANCE COMMISSION, Petitioner,
v.
Henry H. HOWE, Jr., Respondent.
Civ. 9344.
Supreme Court of North Dakota.
Aug. 18, 1977.

Page 421

Gregory D. Morris, Bismarck, for petitioner.

Lundberg, Conmy, Nodland, Rosenberg, Lucas & Schulz, Bismarck, for respondent; argued by Irvin B. Nodland, Bismarck, and Henry H. Howe, Jr., pro se.

PEDERSON, Justice.

This is an original disciplinary proceeding in this Court involving Henry H. Howe, Jr., who was admitted to practice as a lawyer in North Dakota in July 1973. Howe practiced in Valley City until he was recently employed at Minot by L.A.N.D. (Legal Aid for North Dakota).

After a complaint was served and filed in behalf of the Grievance Commission charging violations of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and specifically Disciplinary Rules DR 1-101(A) and DR 1-102(A)(4)(5)(6), the parties stipulated the facts and the answer admitted the allegations but asked that there be no suspension ". . . for the reasons and explanations appearing in the record, because of the time that has transpired, and in the interest of justice." This Court then issued an order to show cause directing Howe to show why an order should not be issued adopting the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Grievance Commission that Howe's certificate of admission to practice law be suspended.

The pertinent facts as stipulated are:

I. When Howe applied for admission to practice law in North Dakota, in answer to the question, "Have you served in the armed forces of the United States?", he wrote, "Ruled 4-F, By Draft Board." A complete response would have included the fact that he did serve in the Armed Forces of the United States as a commissioned officer. In response to the directive to attach a "copy of military service discharge certificate," Howe drew a line through the directive. If the directive had been fulfilled by Howe, it would have shown that he was dismissed from the service under other than honorable conditions. Howe was subsequently classified 4-F.

II. When Howe applied for an insurance agent's license in 1975, he disclosed that his birth date was January 21, 1946, and that his place of birth was Berkeley, California. At the time Howe knew that his correct birth date was January 9, 1942, and that his place of birth was Arlington, Virginia. In the same application Howe indicated that from 1970 to 1973 he was in Berkeley, California, whereas in fact he had lived in numerous places during that period. He indicated that in 1973-1974 he was employed in Tuscon, Arizona, as a "staff attorney," whereas he had worked as a paralegal for the Office of Economic Opportunity.

III. When Howe made application for a North Dakota driver's license, he stated that he had not had a driver's license from any other state, whereas in fact he had had driver's licenses issued to him in several other states. In the same application Howe disclosed that his birth date was January 21, 1945, being aware that the correct date was January 9, 1942.

IV. Although Howe had been charged with tampering with a witness (see State v. Howe, 247 N.W.2d 647 (N.D.1976)), it was agreed that the matter was not to be considered in this proceeding. In oral argument we were informed that that charge had been dismissed on motion of the prosecution.

V. Howe was convicted by a jury of "failure to appear" and sentenced to six months at the State Farm. This conviction has recently been reversed (State v. Howe, 257 N.W.2d 413 (N.D.1977)). In concluding that Howe was not guilty of "failure to appear after release," we said that this does not mean that we condone what he has done, especially in light of the fact that he is a lawyer and is held to the high standards of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The parties agreed that this Court may take judicial notice of all the files and records in that proceeding in disposing of this disciplinary matter.

The procedural rules applicable are those adopted by this Court on June 21, 1965 (effective August 1, 1965), not the North

Page 422

Dakota Rules of Disciplinary Procedure (NDRDP) adopted by this Court on April 29, 1977 (effective July 1, 1977). The preamble to the applicable 1965 rules provides in part:

"Any acts committed by an attorney contrary to accepted standards of honesty, justice, or morality, including but not limited to those outlined in Section 27-14-02, North Dakota Century Code, and the violation of the duties outlined in Section 27-13-01, North Dakota Century Code, may constitute cause for discipline. Where such act constitutes a felony or misdemeanor, conviction thereof in a criminal proceeding shall not be a condition precedent to suspension or to the institution of disciplinary proceedings, nor shall acquittal necessarily constitute a bar thereto. Any violation of the canons of professional ethics, as adopted by the American Bar Association and affirmed by the State Bar Association of North Dakota, may also constitute cause for discipline."

It should not be necessary to repeat a description of Howe's conduct which resulted in the charge of "failure to appear after release" in violation of § 12.1-08-05, NDCC, which is contained in State v. Howe, 257 N.W.2d 413 (N.D.1977). It is obvious that only because Howe was an officer of the court did he have the opportunity to avoid police custody without first appearing in court. It is his conduct as an officer of the court with which we are now concerned not whether such conduct constituted a criminal violation.

The Grievance Commission report adopted the provisions of the stipulation of facts as its findings, and therefrom concluded, inter alia, that the acts admitted constitute violations of the Code of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 practice notes
  • Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Kupec, No. 23011.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 2 Abril 1998
    ...People v. Kane, 638 P.2d 253 (Colo.1981) (failure to appear at contempt hearing on charge of failing to pay child support); In re Howe, 257 N.W.2d 420 (N.D.1977) (false statements to bar admission We believe that use of client trust funds for payment of a law firm's unrelated litigation exp......
  • Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Kepple, Misc. Docket AG No. 55
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • 21 Junio 2013
    ...fitness to practice law.’ ” Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Gilbert, 307 Md. 481, 492, 515 A.2d 454, 459 (1986) (quoting Matter of Howe, 257 N.W.2d 420, 422 (N.D.1977)). Had the State Board of Law Examiners been made aware, if true, that Respondent intentionally concealed information from her ......
  • Attorney Grievance Com'n of Maryland v. Gilbert
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • 6 Octubre 1986
    ...contradiction." We have not previously construed the word "material" in the context of its usage in DR 1-101(A). In Matter of Howe, 257 N.W.2d 420, 422 (N.D.1977), however, the North Dakota Supreme Court defined a material omission within the contemplation of the same disciplinary rule as o......
  • Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Kepple, Misc. Docket AG No. 55
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 21 Junio 2013
    ...fitness to practice law.'" Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Gilbert, 307 Md. 481, 492, 515 A.2d 454, 459 (1986) (quoting Matter of Howe, 257 N.W.2d 420, 422 (N.D. 1977)). Had the State Board of Law Examiners been made aware, if true, that Respondent intentionally concealed information from her ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
13 cases
  • Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Kupec, No. 23011.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 2 Abril 1998
    ...People v. Kane, 638 P.2d 253 (Colo.1981) (failure to appear at contempt hearing on charge of failing to pay child support); In re Howe, 257 N.W.2d 420 (N.D.1977) (false statements to bar admission We believe that use of client trust funds for payment of a law firm's unrelated litigation exp......
  • Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Kepple, Misc. Docket AG No. 55
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • 21 Junio 2013
    ...fitness to practice law.’ ” Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Gilbert, 307 Md. 481, 492, 515 A.2d 454, 459 (1986) (quoting Matter of Howe, 257 N.W.2d 420, 422 (N.D.1977)). Had the State Board of Law Examiners been made aware, if true, that Respondent intentionally concealed information from her ......
  • Attorney Grievance Com'n of Maryland v. Gilbert
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • 6 Octubre 1986
    ...contradiction." We have not previously construed the word "material" in the context of its usage in DR 1-101(A). In Matter of Howe, 257 N.W.2d 420, 422 (N.D.1977), however, the North Dakota Supreme Court defined a material omission within the contemplation of the same disciplinary rule as o......
  • Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Kepple, Misc. Docket AG No. 55
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 21 Junio 2013
    ...fitness to practice law.'" Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Gilbert, 307 Md. 481, 492, 515 A.2d 454, 459 (1986) (quoting Matter of Howe, 257 N.W.2d 420, 422 (N.D. 1977)). Had the State Board of Law Examiners been made aware, if true, that Respondent intentionally concealed information from her ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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