 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Ogilvie5/25/2005
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
Argued on April 27, 2005
[ .] John C. Ogilvie, Jr., was conditionally admitted to the State Bar of South Dakota in 2001. Having found that he failed to maintain the requirements of his conditional admission, the Board of Bar Examiners recommended that his license be revoked. Based on our conclusions set out below, we revoke his conditional license as a South Dakota attorney.
Background
[ .] In 2001, we granted John C. Ogilvie, Jr., a conditional admission to practice law in South Dakota. See In re Ogilvie, 2001 SD 29, 623 NW2d 55. The specifics of his background and the reasons for our ruling can be found in that opinion. It will now suffice to say only that he was not granted a full admission to the bar because of his history of two DUI arrests, acts of alleged domestic abuse, failure to pass a drug screening test for an earlier job, delinquency in child support payments, and interference with a witness in a divorce trial. Despite this history, Ogilvie convinced this Court that these concerns were resolved and should not deny him the opportunity for a conditional admission. Id. , 623 NW2d at 58 (split decision: he "carried his burden of proving good moral character as required under SDCL 16-16-2.2").
[ .] As part of his conditional admission, we ruled that Ogilvie should participate in a three-year mentorship program. During this time, the Board would keep close oversight of his law practice and his behavior. His license was "subject to revocation" in the event he was unsuccessful in maintaining the requirements of his conditional admission. Id.
[ .] On December 22, 2003, the Board held a hearing to consider new disclosures about Ogilvie's conduct. Testimony was given by several witnesses, including Ogilvie. The new information concerned allegations of domestic violence, alcohol abuse, unprofessional conduct, and neglect of clients' cases. After considering these matters, the Board recommended that Ogilvie's license be immediately suspended, that his conditional admission be revoked, and that he be prohibited from reapplying for such period as this Court deems proper. We suspended Ogilvie's license on April 1, 2004. In the interim, the Board and Ogilvie submitted briefs, and thereafter we heard oral arguments. The question before us is whether Ogilvie has maintained good moral character as required by SDCL 16-16-17.1 so that his conditional admission can continue. See SDCL 16-16-17.1 (1996).
Analysis and Decision
[ .] It is our responsibility to oversee all bar admissions in South Dakota. In re Widdison, 539 NW2d 671, 675 (SD 1995); In re Shemonsky, 379 NW2d 316, 318 (SD 1985). We are not bound by any recommendation from the Board of Bar Examiners. Widdison, 539 NW2d at 675 (citing Shemonsky, 379 NW2d at 318); see SDCL 16-16-16 (2003). Nonetheless, we give due consideration to the Board's character and credibility determinations. Ogilvie, 2001 SD 29, , 10, 623 NW2d at 56, 58 (citations omitted). Conditionally licensed attorneys maintain the continuing burden of proof to show by clear and convincing evidence that they possess good character and moral fitness. Id. ; SDCL 16-16-2.2 (1996). A conditional admission "offers a probationary period for those not able to gain admission to practice because of misconduct in the past or lingering questions of character in the present." Ogilvie, 2001 SD 29, , 623 NW2d at 59 (Konenkamp, J., concurring).
[ .] South Dakota's conditional admission statute provides:
If the Board of Bar Examiners determines that there are unresolved issues of good moral character, fitness, or general qualifications of the applicant, the boa
Page 1 2 3 4 South Dakota DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|