In re Strand
| Decision Date | 03 May 1935 |
| Docket Number | 30021. |
| Citation | 260 N.W. 499,194 Minn. 391 |
| Parties | In re STRAND. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Proceedings in the matter of the application for the discipline of O. B Strand, attorney at law in the state of Minnesota.
Respondent disbarred.
Evidence regarding attorney's misconduct, especially his attempt to substitute worthless note for cash in estate of which he had charge as executor, held to show such moral delinquency as to justify disbarment.
Syllabus by the Court .
The conduct of respondent shows moral unfitness to practice law.
David L. Morse, of Blue Earth, for complainant.
O. B Strand, of Kenyon (P. E. Sargent, of Red Wing, of counsel) for respondent.
Complaint having been filed accusing the respondent of professional misconduct, the Honorable A. B. Gislason, a judge of the Ninth judicial district, was appointed to take and report the evidence upon the charges filed and to find the facts. The said referee, having heard the evidence, adduced and filed his findings, the matter was argued and submitted in this court.
It appears that respondent was admitted to practive law in this state in 1909, and since that time has resided and practiced his profession at Kenyon. In 1931 he received, from attorneys in Nebraska, a claim of $82.50 for collection against one A G. Satre. He settled it for $65, although he had no right to do so. After that he wrote the attorneys who had sent him the claim that he expected the debtor to settle. He concealed the fact that he had collected $65 until 1933, when Mr. Satre went to Iowa, where the owner of the claim lived. The latter there sued Satre. The suit was dismissed when Satre exhibited the receipt in full he received from respondent in 1931 when he paid the $65. When the Nebraska attorneys learned of this, their demand upon respondent brought a remittance March 27, 1933. But respondent made no attempt to rectify his wrongdoing until complaint thereof had been filed with the board of law examiners and a letter of warning had been sent by its secretary to respondent. Respondent was clearly guilty of professional misconduct herein, which caused annoyance and needless expense to the attorneys who sent him the claim and to both the debtor and creditor involved, to say nothing of the obvious falsity of the explanation he gave of the transaction to the board of law examiners.
Another charge against respondent arises from acts as executor in the estate of Mons J. Broin, in the probate court of Goodhue county. By the sale of lands in the estate a large sum of money came into his hands in and prior to 1927. On January 21, 1929, he was cited in to file his final account as executor. He did so. A hearing was had August 26, 1929, and he was directed to pay the beneficiaries $8,684.28, and take and file their receipts with the court. He has not as yet paid in full or obtained or filed the receipts. There remains $3,700 unpaid; but the beneficiaries have accepted the assignment of a real estate mortgage for $5,000 ‘ either in settlement and payment...
To continue reading
Request your trial