In re Kaas

• Decision Date: 30 April 1917
• Docket Number: No. 4017.,4017.
• Citation: 162 N.W. 370,39 S.D. 4
• Parties: In re KAAS.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

39 S.D. 4

162 N.W. 370

In re KAAS.

No. 4017.

Supreme Court of South Dakota.

April 30, 1917.

Original proceedings for the disbarment of Otto L. Kaas, attorney at law. Judgment of disbarment.Clarence C. Caldwell, Atty. Gen., for the State.

Frank Anderson, of Webster, Byron Abbott, of Britton, and Howard G. Fuller, of Pierre, for respondent.

SMITH, J.

A petition was filed in this court on April 7, 1916, accusing respondent, Otto L. Kaas, of dishonorable and unprofessional conduct as an attorney at law, which was referred to the Attorney General for investigation, pursuant to chapter 85, Laws 1911. After due investigation, the Attorney General filed his report, and thereupon was further directed to file formal charges accusing respondent of dishonorable and unprofessional conduct as an attorney and counselor, and such charges were duly filed.

On May 19, 1916, respondent filed his general denial of said charges. Thereafter, on July 13, 1916, with the consent and approval of respondent and of the Attorney General, Hon. Chas. P. Bates, an attorney and counselor of this court, was appointed referee to try the issues raised, with full authority to take testimony, to rule upon the competency and admissibility of evidence, to make findings of fact and conclusions of law upon the issues presented, and to report the evidence taken and proceedings had to this court. Thereafter, on January 25, 1917, said referee filed his report, with findings of fact and conclusions of law, fully sustaining all the charges in the complaint, and to the effect that in fact and in law the conduct of respondent in the transactions specified in the complaint was unprofessional, wrongful, and dishonest.

[1] It would serve no useful purpose to state the particulars of the charges, further than to observe that they specify two cases in which respondent collected and appropriated to his own use moneys belonging to his clients. The referee reports that portions of these moneys were returned to such clients since these disbarment proceedings were begun. We refer to this fact only in connection with a further statement by the referee that in his opinion respondent “did not intend to defraud (his clients) of such amounts by permanently retaining the same,” but expected to return them to his clients. Such intent, if it existed, in no degree deprived respondent's acts of their unprofessional and wrongful character.

The writer deems it unnecessary, in view of the conclusion...