In re Holmay
399 N.W.2d 564 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney's unauthorized forgery of a client's signature on legal documents, combined with false notarization of those signatures, constitutes serious professional misconduct warranting suspension from the practice of law.
Facts:
- In June 1984, attorney Jerome J. Holmay was representing a client in a marriage dissolution proceeding.
- Holmay forged or procured the forgery of his client's signature on a petition for dissolution of marriage and on an application for temporary relief.
- Holmay did not have his client's permission to forge her signature on these documents.
- After the signatures were forged, Holmay notarized the documents, attesting that the signatures were authentic.
- Holmay then presented the falsely signed and notarized documents to a judge and had them served on the opposing party in the dissolution case.
Procedural Posture:
- The Director of the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board filed a petition for disciplinary action against respondent attorney Jerome J. Holmay in the Minnesota Supreme Court.
- Holmay failed to file an answer to the petition.
- Pursuant to court rules, the Minnesota Supreme Court ordered that the allegations in the petition be deemed admitted due to Holmay's failure to answer.
- The court then set a hearing for the sole purpose of determining the appropriate discipline to impose.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an attorney's conduct of forging a client's signature on legal documents without permission, falsely notarizing those documents, and submitting them to a court warrant suspension from the practice of law?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, an attorney's conduct of forging a client's signature on legal documents without permission, falsely notarizing those documents, and submitting them to a court warrants suspension from the practice of law. The court found this misconduct to be serious, distinguishing it from prior cases where attorneys received lesser sanctions like public reprimands. In those cases, such as In re Cohen and In re Dowdal, the forgeries were done with the permission of the individual whose signature was forged. In contrast, Holmay acted without his client's consent. The court also distinguished the case from In re Finley, where the attorney believed the signatures he notarized were genuine. Given the court's previous warning to the bar about the seriousness of false notarization and the aggravating factor of lacking client consent, a 30-day suspension was deemed the appropriate discipline.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a clear hierarchy of severity for attorney misconduct involving forgery and false notarization. It elevates the disciplinary sanction from a public reprimand to suspension when the forgery is committed without the client's knowledge or consent. The ruling serves as a strong precedent, putting the bar on notice that the lack of client authorization is a critical aggravating factor that transforms the nature of the offense. This case solidifies the principle that deceiving one's own client in addition to the court and opposing party constitutes a more egregious breach of professional ethics, warranting a more severe punishment.
Unlock the full brief for In re Holmay