Attorney suspended in South Dakota for 30 days after unprofessional conduct
A member of the State Bar of South Dakota has been suspended for 30 days, following an investigation into a complaint of unprofessional conduct during a Lincoln County trial.
Ronald R. Frauenshuh received the suspension, after the disciplinary board of the State Bar of South Dakota investigated the complaint, determining he violated rules of professional conduct and recommending a three-month suspension from the practice of law.
Frauenshuh was first admitted to the South Dakota Bar in 2015, and has had offices in Ortonville, Minnesota and Watertown. Only his Watertown office remains open, according to proceedings from the South Dakota Supreme Court.
The complaints stem from a case in which he was privately retained in 2019 to represent a defendant on charges of sexual contact with a child under 16 and attempted sexual contact with a child under 16.
The case proceeded to a jury trial in October 2020, but before the trial concluded, the circuit court granted the state’s attorney’s motion for a mistrial after finding Frauenshuh had repeatedly violated several court orders and evidentiary rulings, according to the decision from the South Dakota Supreme Court.
Usually, if the discplinary board finds wrongdoing, they can issue a privat repremand in less serious instances, according to the State Bar of South Dakota website. If something more serious has occured, the violation is reported to the Supremem Court, which could either refer the issue to a circuit court judge as a referee or recommend disciplinary action, the website states.
In this instance, a second criminal trial began in March 2021 for the sexual contact case. But during Frauenshuh’s opening statement, the Supreme Court again found the attorney violated the court’s previous evidentiary ruling. The jury ultimately returned a verdict of not guilty on both sexual contact charges and the court entered a judgement of acquittal for the defendant.
After the March 2021 trial, however, a complaint was filed against the attorney. That's when Lincoln County Deputy State’s Attorney William Golden reported “either Mr. Frauenshuh did not understand the (c)ourt’s orders, or he did understand and intentionally violated the (c)ourt’s order,” according to the Supreme Court decision. Golden was the lead prosecutor in the sexual contact case, court records show.
According to the Supreme Court’s proceedings, the disciplinary board found the attorney:
Violated the court’s pretrial orders resulting in curative instructions being given on at least three occasions.
Witnesses Frauenshuh planned to call on behalf of the defendant were present in the courtroom in violation of the court’s sequestration order.
Asked a question in direct violation of the court’s order regarding the scope of testimony.
In two separate conferences with the court and counsel outside the courtroom, he left his microphone on, resulting in the jury being able to hear part of the discussions.
At the second trial, the state objected to statements made in voir dire by the attorney in violation of the court’s orders related to the issue of what Fraunshuh anticipated his expert would testify when it came to intent, according to the Supreme Court.
In its findings, the board entered conclusions determining “(Frauenshuh’s) actions reflect a lack of understanding of his obligations under the Rules of Professional Conduct,” and pointed to his previous disciplinary proceedings in Minnesota. The board also determed, “(Frauenshuh’s) intentional disregard of a court order constitutes grounds for discipline under the South Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct,” according to the Supreme Court's ruling.
In his response, Frauenshuh disputed the relevance of his disciplinary history in Minnesota, arguing there were no instances of misconduct alleged for more than 20 years. He admitted the circuit court gave curative instructions three times and the court determined his question to the expert violated the court’s order, according to the Supreme Court ruling.
The attorney said he accidentally left his microphone on and that led to the court’s decision to grant the mistrial. During testimony, the attorney maintained leaving the microphone on was a result of his limited experience with microphones, according to the ruling
“Frauenshuh asserted that the board’s findings improperly conflated his defense that the conduct was unintentional with a failure to accept responsibility for his conduct,” the Supreme Court ruled.
The Supreme Court appointed a retired circuit court judge as a referee to take testimony on the disputed issues and enter findings, conclusions and a recommendation to the court. The referee found the board’s findings following their investigation to be “wholly appropriate” and expanded upon them.
During his appearance before the board, Frauenshuh stated he was considering self-imposing a “no more trial restriction,” and also told the board he was considering resigning from the practice of law, according to the opinion published by the Supreme Court.
He also argued the three-month suspension recommended by the board was excessive, and given his age, would effectively end his legal career.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court suspended Frauenshuh’s license to practice law in the state for 30 days.
Frauenshuh declined to make a statement to the Argus Leader for this story.
This article originally appeared on Sioux Falls Argus Leader: SD Supreme Court suspends attorney for 30 days after unprofessional conduct
