Kaine, In re, C1-87-1830

• Decision Date: 27 May 1988
• Docket Number: No. C1-87-1830,C1-87-1830
• Parties: In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against J. Timothy KAINE, an Attorney at Law of the State of Minnesota.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 64

424 N.W.2d 64

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

No. C1-87-1830.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 27, 1988.

William J. Wernz, Director of the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Bd., St. Paul, for appellant.

Edward F. Kautzer, St. Paul, for respondent.

Heard, considered, and decided by the court en banc.

PER CURIAM.

Respondent gave assistance to another attorney who was engaged in misappropriating funds from a client's estate. We impose an indefinite suspension, with no possibility of reinstatement for 5 years.

Respondent J. Timothy Kaine was admitted to practice in 1978. On June 24, 1987, respondent met with John T. Benson, a former law school classmate, who asked respondent's assistance in a trust matter. Some 9 months earlier, Benson had drafted an agreement between himself and Vivian Young, an elderly widow and long-time family friend, whereby Mrs. Young gave the bulk of her estate to Benson in return for Benson's promise to take care of Mrs. Young for the rest of her life. Other documents prepared by Benson made Benson trustee and beneficiary of a trust containing all of Vivian Young's assets. Benson asked respondent to sign the papers so as to make it appear that respondent had drafted them at Mrs. Young's request. Respondent did so. Benson paid respondent $2,000, apparently promising an additional $3,000. Respondent had never met Vivian Young and, of course, had never advised her.

A week later respondent learned through a newspaper article that Benson was being sued for misappropriation of some $90,000 from Vivian Young and was being investigated by the Lawyers Board of Professional Responsibility. Even so, respondent, for his services, cashed Benson's $2,000 check. On July 14, 1987, respondent gave a voluntary, unrecorded statement to the Lawyers Board of Professional Responsibility, confirming that he had, indeed, drafted the trust documents. Subsequently, arrangements were made for respondent to give a formal, sworn statement on July 31, 1987. Prior to this date, respondent met with Benson to fabricate testimony (going so far as driving to the Young house to view the interior so as to be able to add authentic detail to his testimony). On July 31, respondent gave extensive testimony that he had counseled Mrs. Young, drafted all the documents, and had ensured that her wishes were followed. The director then issued charges against respondent for inadequate counseling of Mrs. Young. On further investigation, however, the director developed evidence indicating that respondent's signature and his typed signature block had been added to the trust documents some time after the preparation of the documents themselves. Confronted with this evidence, respondent retracted his prior fabricated testimony and admitted that he had not counseled Vivian Young nor prepared the documents.

The referee found that respondent had conspired to alter and fabricate trust documents, had accepted payment for this misconduct, had conspired to fabricate false testimony, and had given false testimony, both sworn and unsworn, with the intention of obstructing the investigation of the Young matter. The referee found no mitigating factors, including "no...