Montgomery, Matter of, 960391

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
• Citation: 566 N.W.2d 426
• Docket Number: No. 960391,960391
• Parties: In the Matter of the Application for Reinstatement to the Bar of North Dakota of Bruce R. MONTGOMERY. Bruce R. MONTGOMERY, Petitioner, v. DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, Respondent. Civil
• Decision Date: 21 July 1997

Page 426

566 N.W.2d 426 1997 ND 148 In the Matter of the Application for Reinstatement to the
Bar of North Dakota of Bruce R. MONTGOMERY.
Bruce R. MONTGOMERY, Petitioner,
v.
DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF
NORTH DAKOTA, Respondent. Civil No. 960391. Supreme Court of North Dakota. July 21, 1997.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 11, 1997.

Page 427

Carl O. Flagstad, Jr., Minot, for Petitioner.

Paul W. Jacobson, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, Bismarck, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

¶1 Bruce R. Montgomery has filed a petition for reinstatement to the bar. We conclude the hearing panel and Disciplinary Board failed to adequately consider Montgomery's pre-disbarment conduct when they recommended reinstatement, and we remand to the Board for further proceedings.

I

¶2 Montgomery was disbarred on February 10, 1988, for misconduct occurring while he was a partner in the Minot law firm Teevens, Johnson & Montgomery, P.C. ¹ See In re Montgomery, 418 N.W.2d 789 (N.D.1988). Montgomery consented to disbarment, stipulating he and William Teevens had improperly commingled funds from settlement proceeds payable to client Cynthia Bossert, and borrowed funds from Bossert which the firm was unable to repay. Montgomery also stipulated:

"(a) Montgomery received a check for $7,000 payable to LeRoy and Lola Sondrol, endorsed both names, and deposited it into the firm's trust account, rather than into a farm account held jointly by the Sondrols.

"(b) A substantial portion of the funds was extended immediately for the firm's benefit, which fact was misrepresented to the client, to opposing counsel, and to Inquiry Committee West."

¶3 Later in 1988, disciplinary counsel filed a disciplinary complaint against Montgomery based upon four additional claims of misconduct. The Board dismissed the complaint without prejudice on July 15, 1992, stating:

"The Board determined that the proceedings should not go forward as Respondent Montgomery was disbarred by the North Dakota Supreme Court on February 10, 1988. The Board ORDERED that the proceedings be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE based on the disbarment. Further, that information will be retained for consideration should Respondent Montgomery

Page 428

apply for reinstatement to the Bar of the State of North Dakota."

Further disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Montgomery in 1994, and again the Board dismissed without prejudice because Montgomery had already been disbarred.

¶4 In February 1995, Montgomery filed a petition seeking reinstatement. The Board referred the matter to a hearing panel under Rule 4.5(F), N.D.R.L.D., and a hearing was held on September 29, 1995. The hearing panel issued findings and recommended Montgomery be reinstated. 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 Rule 4.5, N.D.R.L.D.

II

¶5 We review disciplinary proceedings against attorneys de novo on the record under a clear and convincing standard of proof. In re LaQua, 548 N.W.2d 372, 373 (N.D.1996). We accord due weight to the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the hearing panel as adopted by the Board. In re Nassif, 547 N.W.2d 541, 542 (N.D.1996). Each disciplinary case must be judged on its own facts and merits. LaQua at 373.

¶6 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.

III

¶7 Disciplinary counsel asserts the hearing panel and the Board erred in failing to give adequate consideration to the serious nature of Montgomery's pre-disbarment misconduct. We agree.

¶8 Rule 4.5(F), N.D.R.L.D., lists numerous factors to be considered when determining whether to reinstate a disbarred or suspended attorney. The Rule says, in part: "Factors that may be considered include evidence of the following: ... 7. Notwithstanding the conduct for which the petitioner was disciplined, the petitioner has the requisite honesty and integrity to practice law."

¶9 At the hearing on the petition for reinstatement, Montgomery objected to introduction of evidence regarding pre-disbarment conduct. Montgomery asserted the sole issue on reinstatement was rehabilitation, and matters occurring prior to disbarment were irrelevant. The following colloquy occurred:

"MS. NORDSVEN [Chair of the Hearing Panel]: Mr. Flagstad, am I to understand that the objection you indicated earlier with respect to the scope of the examination pertaining to issues prior to the disbarment and activities of the disbarment not be considered continues? Is that a continuing objection?

"MR. FLAGSTAD [Montgomery's counsel]: Yes, it is.

"MS. NORDSVEN: Okay. Then based on that, although I think there is some relevancy to that, I think that we've gone, Mr. Jacobson, to the extreme. I don't think we need to go into a great deal of detail regarding items and issues that certainly would have been relevant prior to the disbarment. If you have information relative to financial integrity subsequent to disbarment, by all means, we need to consider that. But to the extent...