In re Reinstatement of Montgomery, 990278.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM. |
| Citation | 2000 ND 127,612 N.W.2d 278 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Application for REINSTATEMENT OF Bruce R. MONTGOMERY. Bruce R. Montgomery, Petitioner, v. Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota, Respondent. |
| Docket Number | No. 990278.,990278. |
| Decision Date | 23 June 2000 |
612 N.W.2d 278
2000 ND 127
Bruce R. Montgomery, Petitioner,
v.
Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota, Respondent
No. 990278.
Supreme Court of North Dakota.
June 23, 2000.
Paul W. Jacobson, Disciplinary Counsel, Bismarck, N.D., for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
[¶ 1] Bruce Montgomery has petitioned for reinstatement to the bar. We adopt the recommendation of the Disciplinary Board and deny Montgomery's petition.
I
[¶ 2] Montgomery was disbarred in 1988 for misconduct occurring while he was a partner in a Minot law firm.1 See In re Montgomery, 418 N.W.2d 789 (N.D.1988). Montgomery consented to disbarment based upon misapplication of funds from clients Cynthia Bossert and Leroy and Lola Sondrol. Additional disciplinary complaints filed against Montgomery in 1988 and 1994 were dismissed without prejudice because Montgomery had already been disbarred.
[¶ 3] In 1995 Montgomery sought reinstatement to the bar. A hearing was held on September 29, 1995, before a hearing panel appointed by the Disciplinary Board. The hearing panel issued findings and recommended Montgomery be reinstated. The Board adopted the hearing panel's recommendation and submitted its report to this Court. Concluding the hearing panel and the Board had failed to properly consider Montgomery's pre-disbarment misconduct, we remanded for further proceedings. In re Montgomery, 1997 ND 148, 566 N.W.2d 426.
[¶ 4] On remand, a new hearing panel was appointed, and a hearing was held on December 11, 1998. The hearing panel issued findings and recommended Montgomery's petition for reinstatement be denied. The Board adopted the findings and recommendation of the hearing panel and submitted its report to this Court. We have jurisdiction under N.D. Const. art. VI, § 3, and N.D.R. Lawyer Discipl. 4.5.
II
[¶ 5] We set out the standard for review of a petition for reinstatement in our prior opinion in this matter:
We review disciplinary proceedings against attorneys de novo on the record under a clear and convincing standard of proof. We accord due weight to the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the hearing panel as adopted by the Board. Each disciplinary case must be judged on its own facts and merits.
A disbarred attorney petitioning for reinstatement bears a heavy burden of proof:
"The petitioner has the burden of establishing the averments of his application for readmission by clear and convincing evidence. The proof must be of a satisfactory character and of sufficient weight to overcome the former adverse judgment as to the petitioner's character."
Application of Christianson, 215 N.W.2d 920, 923 (N.D.1974); see also Rule 4.5(F), N.D.R.L.D.
Montgomery, 1997 ND 148, ¶¶ 5-6, 566 N.W.2d 426 (citations omitted).
III
[¶ 6] Montgomery argues the Board and the hearing panel exceeded the scope of our remand. Montgomery contends our prior opinion limited the remand only to give disciplinary counsel the opportunity
[¶ 7] Montgomery has misinterpreted our prior opinion in this matter. The first hearing panel had construed N.D.R. Lawyer Discipl. 4.5(F)(7) as prohibiting consideration of pre-disbarment misconduct when determining rehabilitation and reinstatement. We did not limit the remand to consideration only of new, additional allegations of misconduct. Rather, our opinion clearly indicated the hearing panel and Board had misinterpreted N.D.R. Lawyer Discipl. 4.5(F)(7) and had failed to give proper consideration to evidence of Montgomery's pre-disbarment conduct, including the conduct for which he was disbarred:
The hearing panel and the Board have misconstrued Rule 4.5(F), N.D.R.L.D., and have ignored our precedent regarding the proper scope of inquiry on a petition for reinstatement of a disbarred attorney. The language "Notwithstanding the conduct for which the petitioner was disciplined" in Rule 4.5(F) does not mean pre-disbarment conduct is irrelevant to the issue of reinstatement. Rather, it requires the petitioner to prove by clear and convincing evidence he currently has the requisite honesty and integrity to practice law, in spite of the misconduct committed in the past. The rule envisions a balancing of the evidence of the petitioner's current good character with the seriousness of the prior misconduct.
....
To fully protect the public, all evidence of past conduct of the disbarred attorney should be considered when determining whether the attorney has the requisite...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Hoffman, 20050162.
...and accord due weight to the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the hearing panel as adopted by the Board. In re Montgomery, 2000 ND 127, ¶ 5, 612 N.W.2d 278. Each case must be judged on its own facts and merits. In re Montgomery, 1997 ND 148, ¶ 5, 566 N.W.2d [¶ 6] The Board dete......
-
Stensland v. Disciplinary Bd. of the Supreme Court of State (In re Application for Reinstatement of Stensland), 20130008.
...and accord due weight to the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the hearing panel as adopted by the Board. In re Montgomery, 2000 ND 127, ¶ 5, 612 N.W.2d 278. Each case must be [853 N.W.2d 541judged on its own facts and merits. In re Montgomery, 1997 ND 148, ¶ 5, 566 N.W.2d 426.H......
-
In re Reinstatement of Ellis, 20060081.
...of establishing the averments of her petition for reinstatement by clear and convincing evidence. Hoffman, at ¶ 5; In re Montgomery, 2000 ND 127, ¶ 5, 612 N.W.2d 278. The petitioner's proof must be of sufficient weight to overcome the former adverse judgment of her character. Hoffman, at ¶ ......
-
In re Hoffman, 20050162.
...and accord due weight to the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the hearing panel as adopted by the Board. In re Montgomery, 2000 ND 127, ¶ 5, 612 N.W.2d 278. Each case must be judged on its own facts and merits. In re Montgomery, 1997 ND 148, ¶ 5, 566 N.W.2d [¶ 6] The Board dete......
-
Stensland v. Disciplinary Bd. of the Supreme Court of State (In re Application for Reinstatement of Stensland), 20130008.
...and accord due weight to the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the hearing panel as adopted by the Board. In re Montgomery, 2000 ND 127, ¶ 5, 612 N.W.2d 278. Each case must be [853 N.W.2d 541judged on its own facts and merits. In re Montgomery, 1997 ND 148, ¶ 5, 566 N.W.2d 426.H......
-
In re Reinstatement of Ellis, 20060081.
...of establishing the averments of her petition for reinstatement by clear and convincing evidence. Hoffman, at ¶ 5; In re Montgomery, 2000 ND 127, ¶ 5, 612 N.W.2d 278. The petitioner's proof must be of sufficient weight to overcome the former adverse judgment of her character. Hoffman, at ¶ ......