MATTER OF LARSON

• Citation: 324 NW 2d 656
• Decision Date: 08 October 1982
• Docket Number: No. 82-276.,82-276.
• Parties: In the Matter of the Petition for Disciplinary Action against Allan J. LARSON, a Minnesota attorney.
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)

324 N.W.2d 656 (1982)

In the Matter of the Petition for Disciplinary Action against Allan J. LARSON, a Minnesota attorney.

No. 82-276.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

October 8, 1982.

Michael J. Hoover, Director of Lawyers Professional Responsibility, St. Paul, for appellant.

Allan J. Larson, Minneapolis, pro se.

Heard, considered and decided by the court en banc.

PER CURIAM.

Respondent Allan J. Larson appeared before this court on an order to show cause why he should not be disbarred. We conclude disbarment is required.

On March 9, 1982, Mr. Larson admitted service of a petition filed against him for disciplinary action. The petition, filed by the Director of the Board of Lawyers Professional Responsibility at the direction of one of its panels, alleged seven detailed counts of misconduct. On April 27, 1982, respondent was duly served with a supplemental petition alleging six additional counts of misconduct. Although the rules require a respondent to serve and file an answer to a petition within 20 days, Mr. Larson failed to timely interpose an answer to either the original or the supplemental petition.¹

On June 28, having noted Mr. Larson was in default, we issued an order to show cause why discipline should not be imposed, setting the matter for hearing before us on September 1, 1982. Finally, on August 31, the day before the hearing, Mr. Larson submitted an answer to the petitions, together with a separate paper entitled "Respondent's Petition for Disbarment." At the hearing the next day, September 1, Mr. Larson appeared personally.

In his answer, respondent admits some background matters relating to the 13 counts against him but denies the allegations of any wrongdoing and any violation of the Rules of Lawyers Professional Responsibility, with three exceptions. As to Counts 4 and 11, which allege failure to cooperate with the Director's investigation, respondent admits his conduct violates Rule 25 on Lawyers Professional Responsibility. As to Count 9, respondent admits one instance of practice of law in Wisconsin without a license. Further, as to Count 12, alleging failure to file tax returns, respondent's answer offers no response. In his accompanying petition, respondent asks this court to order his disbarment but only on the grounds of failure to cooperate with the Director's investigation.

In his petition and in his oral presentation to this court, Mr. Larson contends that he has not practiced law since 1977; that the alleged misconduct, except for two isolated instances, relates only to his activity as a businessman and not as a lawyer; and that to hold a hearing on all the alleged counts of misconduct would be expensive and time consuming and, indeed, unnecessary, since he and the Director seek the same result, namely, respondent's disbarment. The Director, on the other hand, argues that to base disbarment only on noncooperation would not accurately portray the true state of affairs, and that the complete factual situation needs to be established as a matter of public record and because respondent might, contrary to his present statement of intent, later seek either reinstatement in this state or admission to the bar in another state.

Rule 13(c) on Lawyers Professional Responsibility provides: "If the respondent fails to file an answer within the time provided or any extension of time this Court may grant, the petition's allegations shall be deemed admitted and this Court may proceed under Rule 15."

Unquestionably, respondent has failed, by a wide margin, to file a timely answer. Consequently, the allegations in the petitions must be deemed admitted, unless respondent is to be excused of his default. We hold Mr. Larson is not to be excused of his default and that, by virtue of Rule 13(c), the allegations in the petition are deemed admitted.

We do not think Mr. Larson's procedural fencing should be permitted. At no time has respondent asked for an extension of time in which to answer. At no time, not even in the hearing before us, has he offered any reason or excuse for not filing his answer when it should have been filed. Nor does Mr. Larson, even now, seek a hearing on the allegations in the petition; indeed, he concedes he should be disbarred, albeit on grounds of his own choosing. Under these circumstances, respondent's belated answer is unacceptable and he is found to be in default.

The 13 counts of misconduct, thus deemed admitted, may be briefly summarized as follows:

(1) Misrepresentation to investors in Fridley Terrace Development, a limited partnership venture, about having obtained an option to purchase real estate, and further misrepresentation that a certain person was on the board of directors of Summit Park Properties, the general partner.

(2) Failure to provide a promised accounting and refund to the limited partners with subsequent entry of a default judgment against respondent for $37,500 in favor of the limited partners.

(3) Misrepresentation to an investor that no funds would be used for respondent\'s salary until the investment became profitable, and misapplication of funds of Fridley Terrace Development and Summit Park Properties to respondent\'s personal use.

(4) Failure to cooperate with the District Ethics Committee and with the Director in the disciplinary investigation and attempted inducement of individuals not to testify.

(5) An unsigned confession of judgment entered in Hennepin County District Court in the amount of $42,651.20, wherein Larson confessed to having committed fraudulent acts.

(6) When the state sued Mid-Continent Transfer, Inc., respondent, and others for nonpayment of payroll taxes, respondent undertook to represent the corporate secretary who was also sued personally. Although the secretary had a meritorious defense, respondent failed to assert it and neglected the litigation, which led to entry of a default judgment against her. Respondent, personally, had no meritorious defense in the action.

(7) Issuance of a series of checks which were returned because of nonsufficient funds and a series of 10 judgments entered against respondent in Hennepin County courts.

(8) Inducing a person to invest $24,000 in Mid-Continent Transport, Inc., a corporation controlled by respondent, for the purchase of three trailers and then diverting the funds elsewhere.

(9) Having accepted a fee to advise a person on taxes and investments, respondent advised the client to

...