Matter of Hedlund, 49578.

• Decision Date: 16 May 1980
• Docket Number: No. 49578.,49578.
• Parties: In the Matter of the Application for the Disbarment of Peter George HEDLUND, an Attorney at Law of the State of Minnesota.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

293 N.W.2d 63 (1980)

In the Matter of the Application for the Disbarment of Peter George HEDLUND, an Attorney at Law of the State of Minnesota.

No. 49578.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 16, 1980.

Michael J. Hoover, Adm. Director on Professional Conduct, and Richard C. Baker, Staff Atty., Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board, St. Paul, for appellant.

Thomson & Nordby and Jack S. Nordby, St. Paul, for respondent.

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

PER CURIAM.

Peter George Hedlund was a duly licensed lawyer in the State of Minnesota. He was convicted of the felonious crimes of presenting false claims to a public body, Minn.Stat. §§ 609.465 and 609.05, and diversion of corporate property from a corporation, Minn.Stat. §§ 300.60 and 609.05. On October 13, 1976, Hedlund was suspended from the practice of law pending appeal of his conviction. His conviction was affirmed by this court. State v. Strimling, 265 N.W.2d 423 (Minn.1978). This petition was filed and the matter referred to a referee for hearing. The referee recommended disbarment. We order disbarment.

The facts relating to Hedlund's conviction on two felony counts are detailed in State v. Strimling and will not be restated except as pertinent to our present disposition.

At the hearing before the referee, six character witnesses testified on Hedlund's behalf. Each witness had known Hedlund personally and professionally for an average period of 20 years. In their testimony, the witnesses described Hedlund as "perfectly honest", "above board", "extremely fair", and a "very competent, hardworking, trustworthy lawyer" despite the River Villa episode which is the basis for his convictions. The witnesses also testified that Hedlund did more than the average amount of civil pro bono work, always "plugging himself into the work" even though no fee could be obtained. Finally, the witnesses testified as to the harmful effects which the felony convictions and disbarment procedures were having on Hedlund's family. Mrs. Hedlund, who suffers from arthritis severe enough to make her semi-crippled, has experienced deterioration in her mental and physical condition since this episode began. The Hedlunds' daughter has relinquished all of her activities to stay home to help the family through this troubled time.

In his testimony, Hedlund reviewed his legal career. He began as a law clerk for the Minnesota Supreme Court, then undertook a suburban practice which emphasized municipal work. Later, he joined with a group of young lawyers to do litigation and appellate work. After 20 years, he sold out his interest in the courtroom practice because of his health and started some business ventures. He became a corporate lawyer, working to finance the construction of mobile home parks and the first steel and cement — not wooden — nursing homes in the Twin City area. Because of the felony convictions which arose from his involvement in the River Villa project, however, Hedlund lost everything he had. At present, Hedlund has debts of over $500,000.

Hedlund has looked for employment but has not found any. His wife is unable to do any work for their support. Hedlund believes that he could get corporate legal work if he did not have the stigma of disbarment, even though he has felony convictions, because of the affirmative action programs some companies have for felons. Hedlund believes that he could qualify for this type of program because he has never had a complaint about his legal work and has not previously appeared before the ethics board.

Hedlund was fined $7,500 and has served 9 months of his concurrent 2½- and 3-year prison terms in Stillwater Prison. He is now on parole. Hedlund still believes that he had nothing to do with the fraud at River Villa, although he does admit that he has been convicted of a crime. His position is summarized best in part of his testimony:

Q Well, you said you admitted that you were convicted of a felon?

A Yes, sir.

Q Do you admit that you engaged in the facts and the facts that underlie that conviction?

A Well, the head of the parole board asked me the same question — Mr. Green. And I answered it this way and I\'ll answer it to you. I have been convicted by a jury. I recognize the legal system, and I recognize its obligations and its rights.

To ask me to say was the jury wrong, I think violates the very fundamental things I believe in in terms of the system. Do you want me to say the jury was wrong? I\'ll answer it. I think Mr. Green was right when asking me the question. He said, "you are here because you\'ve been convicted of a crime." I said, "that\'s absolutely true. I had my day in court. I took an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court sustained it, and I don\'t think it\'s my position to say that the jury was right or wrong." Do you want my opinion? The jury was wrong. That\'s why I fought it. If I thought I was guilty, I would have pled guilty. Like the judge said, that isn\'t what we\'re here for.

Q What excuse do you have for having done those things?

A I say if the jury found me guilty of them, then I\'m guilty of them. That doesn\'t mean that within my own heart I did anything wrong. Now what you want me to say is that I was guilty. If I was guilty, I would have pled guilty to it. I had my day in court. The jury found me guilty. Remember, Kritzman and Hartkopf testified that I committed these acts.

These were convicted felons. They were given the opportunity to stay out of the penitentiary if they would testify against George Hedlund. I guess I don\'t blame them for doing it, but that\'s life. The jury found me guilty, and I admit that I was found guilty.

The Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board contends that Hedlund's failure to repent for his actions is an aggravating circumstance which mandates his disbarment. Hedlund contends that repentance is not a determinative factor in disbarment cases and that there are mitigating circumstances in this case which make disbarment an inappropriate discipline.

1. The board suggests that we consider Hedlund's failure to repent as evidence in support of its request for disbarment. We decline to do so under the facts of this case. We adopt the position of the Massachusetts Supreme Court in considering the application of Alger Hiss for reinstatement. The court there said:

The continued assertion of innocence in the face of prior conviction does not, as might be argued, constitute conclusive proof of lack of the necessary moral character to merit reinstatement. Though we deem prior judgments dispositive of all factual issues and deny attorneys subject to disciplinary proceedings the right to relitigate issues of guilt, we recognize that a convicted person may on sincere reasoning believe himself to be innocent. We also take cognizance of Hiss\'s argument that miscarriages of justice are possible. Basically, his underlying theory is that innocent men conceivably could be convicted, that a contrary view would place a mantle of absolute and inviolate

...