Peterson, In re, 37947
| Decision Date | 23 June 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 37947,37947 |
| Citation | 110 N.W.2d 9,260 Minn. 339 |
| Parties | In re Application for the Discipline of Gordon C. PETERSON, an attorney at law of the State of Minnesota. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
A proceeding for the discipline of an attorney instituted by the Practice of Law Committee of the Minnesota State Bar Association is considered in a different light from an ordinary action; it is a proceeding sui generis. It is not the trial of As a conclusion of law respondent is disbarred.
an action or suit between adverse parties but an investigation or inquiry by the court into the conduct of one of its officers. The question before the court is the fitness of the attorney to continue as a member of the legal profession, and the test is whether the conduct of the attorney comes up to the standards set by the canons of ethics. Held, under the record here, the findings of the referee justify a disbarment of the respondent.
Roger Catherwood, Austin, Glen P. Powrie, Minneapolis, for petitioner.
Harry H. Peterson, Minneapolis, for respondent.
Disciplinary proceedings upon the petition of the Practice of Law Committee of the Minnesota State Bar Association, referred to herein as petitioner, for the discipline of Gordon C. Peterson, referred to herein as respondent.
The matter was duly referred by an order of this court dated October 14, 1959, to the Honorable E. R. Selnes, one of the judges of the eighth judicial district, to act as referee with all the powers of a referee under Rule 53.03 of Rules of Civil Procedure and to take testimony and report the same to this court together with his findings of fact. Thereafter, the referee caused the matter to come on for hearing at the courthouse in the city of Minneapolis on February 3 and 4, 1960.
Three charges of professional misconduct were made against the respondent, one of which was dismissed by the referee at the hearing. The other charges concern respondent's alleged professional relations with one Paul Hjelm and with one Martin P. Schmit. For convenience they will be referred to separately as the Hjelm charge and the Schmit charge.
The Hjelm charge stated in substance:
(1) That on or about January 19, 1958, respondent prepared a false and fictitious information against one Paul Hjelm, charging him with the crime of knowingly and willfully making and publishing a false statement for the purpose of obtaining a loan and advance of credit from the First National Bank of Minneapolis, with the intent that such loan and advance of credit be offered to and accepted by the Federal Housing Administration for insurance, and for the purpose of influencing the Federal Housing Administration to take action accepting such loan for insurance.
(2) That the respondent prepared said false information with the intention of obtaining certain sums of money from Paul Hjelm as a legal fee to represent said Paul Hjelm with regard to said charge.
(3) That in reliance upon said false representation and fictitious information, Paul Hjelm turned over to respondent the sum of $1,000 in payment for legal services to be rendered by respondent on behalf of Paul Hjelm in defense of the crime charged in said fictitious information.
(4) That respondent did not render any legal service for or on behalf of Paul Hjelm; that despite numerous demands by Paul Hjelm to return the $1,000, respondent did not refund it until Paul Hjelm was forced to retain other counsel, and after several months respondent did repay the money.
In connection with the Hjelm charge, the referee found in substance as follows:
(1) That respondent is an attorney at law, duly admitted and licensed to practice in the State of Minnesota, and has been engaged in the practice of his profession in the city of Minneapolis since May 29, 1942.
(2) That early in December 1957 Paul Hjelm consulted respondent for the purpose of having respondent represent him in a criminal matter in Federal District Court (3) That Paul Hjelm consulted respondent again at his office on or about Saturday, January 18, 1958, at which time respondent told Paul that there was a charge made against him and demanded a fee of $1,000 to be paid before the following Tuesday, January 21, or respondent would not represent him.
that Clifford and David Hjelm, Paul's brothers, and several other persons were also being investigated by the Federal authorities in connection with certain Federal Housing Administration loans obtained from banks in the St. Paul and Minneapolis area, but no formal charges had been made at that time against any of said persons. The referee also found that respondent agreed to represent Paul Hjelm in the matter.
(4) That on January 18, 1958, respondent received copies of informations against seven persons by mail from the United States district attorney's office but there was no information received against Paul Hjelm.
(5) That on Sunday morning, January 19, 1958, respondent prepared a false and fictitious information in his office in Minneapolis as follows:
PAUL HJELM
Plead Guilty
INFORMATION 18 U.S. Code, Sec 1010
'The united States attorney charges:
'On or about the 1st day of August, 1957, in the City of Minneapolis, County of Hennepin, State and District of Minnesota, one
Knowingly and wilfully for the purpose of obtaining a loan and advance of credit from the First National Bank of Minneapolis, Minnesota, with the intent that such loan and advance of credit to be offered to and accepted by the Federal Housing Administration for insurance, and for the purpose of influencing the Federal Housing Administration to atke (sic) action accepting such loan for insurance, did make, pose, utter and publish a statement, to wit: that all articles and materials had been firnished (sic) and installed and the work satisfactorily completed on premises indicated in a Credit Application dated June 29, 1957, which had been fornished (sic) by said defendants to said Bank, knowing the said statement to be false in that no part of the work as described in the Credit Application dated June 29, 1957 had been performed now had any materials been furnished therefor and neither of said defendant owned the premises upon which said materials and work was to be furnished and performed, in violation of section 1010, Title 18 United States Code.
'United States Attorney'
(6) That in the afternoon of January 19, 1958, respondent showed the information to Clifford Hjelm and that Clifford Hjelm told Paul Hjelm about the information the same day; that on January 20, 1958, Paul Hjelm procured a cashier's check from the Produce Exchange Bank of St. Paul for $1,000 payable to himself and endorsed the same to respondent; that Clifford Hjelm delivered said check to respondent that same day; that after receiving the check respondent instructed Clifford to inform Paul that it would not be necessary for Paul to appear in court the following day, which message was delivered to Paul by his brother Clifford.
(7) That no criminal charge was ever made against Paul Hjelm by the United States district attorney and no information was ever prepared against him as respondent at all times well knew; and that upon discovering said fact Paul Hjelm demanded that respondent return the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Bieber
...who pleaded guilty to eleven counts of making false statements to a lender, mail fraud, and wire fraud); In re Discipline of Peterson, 260 Minn. 339, 110 N.W.2d 9, 12–14 (1961) (disbarring attorney for submitting false statements to a bank); Miss. Bar v. Castle, 38 So.3d 632, 633–34 (Miss.2......
-
Peterson v. Knutson
...Gardner v. Holm, 241 Minn. 125, 62 N.W.2d 52 (1954); Payne v. Lee, 222 Minn. 269, 24 N.W.2d 259 (1946).7 In re Application for Discipline of Peterson, 260 Minn. 339, 110 N.W.2d 9 (1961).8 In re Application for Reinstatement of Peterson, 275 Minn. 559, 146 N.W.2d 768 (1966).9 In re Applicati......
-
Peterson v. Sheran
...and that Peterson sold property belonging to an imprisoned client without giving that client an accounting. In re Application of Peterson, 260 Minn. 339, 110 N.W.2d 9 (1961). Peterson now claims that the forged information was an office joke, and that the charge of improper accounting is fa......
-
Peterson v. Sheran
...Appellant was disbarred from practicing law in the Minnesota courts in 1961 for "reprehensible" conduct. In re Application for Discipline of Peterson, 260 Minn. 339, 110 N.W.2d 9 (1961). He has repeatedly applied for reinstatement to the state bar. In re Application for Reinstatement of Pet......