'I took responsibility': Jason Ravnsborg breaks silence during South Dakota Supreme Court hearing

It's the first time in years that former Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg has publicly addressed his fatal crash that killed a man in September 2020, a testimony that came under the scrutiny of South Dakota's highest court.

Ravnsborg, his lawyers and the State Bar of South Dakota Disciplinary Board presented their formal oral arguments Wednesday about whether the impeached official should lose his law license for a retroactive 26-month period, ending August 2024.

Much of the testimony and arguments from both sides were already presented within a brief filed last week.

However, Ravnsborg took the stand at the end of the hearing to answer questions from the justices and offer his condolences about the incident.

"I didn't ask for this accident, and I'm very sorry that it occurred," Ravnsborg told the state Supreme Court justices Wednesday.

Ravnsborg was mostly mum to reporters following the hearing. He did not answer a question from the Argus Leader about whether he trusted the disciplinary process. He had previously expressed distrust about how his impeachment and the investigation by North Dakota law enforcement, who interviewed him following the September 2020 crash, was handled.

Based on previous Argus Leader reporting, the then-attorney general had told the investigators he was not using his cellphone while traveling from Redfield to Pierre the night of the crash, and that he'd not become aware that he had struck a human until the following day when he returned to the crash scene.

However, North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigation Agent Joe Arenz said cellphone forensics showed he'd been looking at news articles during the drive. The detectives said they also determined he was lying about when he discovered the body based on an inadvertent admission made during the second interrogation.

Ravnsborg's lawyer, Michael Butler, contended the former AG was not on his phone at the time of the crash.

But regarding whether he was dishonest with the investigators about his cell phone usage leading up to the crash, Ravnsborg, who was cool and calm throughout the hearing, became defensive.

The former AG said he thought the North Dakota investigators were "lying" about certain aspects of his crash during his interview in order to garner a confession or evidence to use against him.

He told the justices his mindset during the interview, when it came to his cell phone usage, was focused on the crash.

"Why are we talking about this?" Ravnsborg questioned.

The investigators had been inquiring about how he had been visiting websites and texting before the crash, which he said left him confused over the line of questioning.

"That's what I kept wondering," Ravnsborg said. "We're focusing on the crash here."

He told the justices he "took responsibility" for the crash. But as far as stepping down from his role as attorney general after the crash, Ravnsborg said he had many discussions within his office over what he should do.

"It's not as clear cut" to step down, Ravnsborg said. "I stood my ground."

Asked what he felt would be a suitable course of action after the hearing, Ravnsborg said the case against him should be dismissed.

Board says Ravnsborg was 'dishonest' with law enforcement; 'It's the conduct, not the crime'

The State Bar of South Dakota Disciplinary Board, represented by lawyer Thomas Frieberg, was the first to present their oral arguments to the state justices Wednesday.

Frieberg began by relating the gravity of the potential disciplinary action Ravnsborg faces, which was magnified "by the extensive attention this case received."

This introduction dovetailed into one of their key points for their recommendation to suspend Ravnsborg's law license, which was that the former attorney general's conduct after the September 2020 crash was not benefiting of a high-profile, practicing lawyer.

Frieberg specifically stressed it "wasn't our intention" to focus on Ravnsborg's conduct prior to the crash, adding the board was focused on "the conduct, not the crime." However, he admitted the two timeframes sometimes appear to overlap.

Frieberg pointed to the state's Rules of Professional Conduct, which encompass lawyer misconduct, and what he described as a "lack of awareness" on Ravnsborg's part regarding the Rules of Professional Conduct, the state's professional standards for lawyers.

"The board found [it] problematic," Frieberg said, that Ravnsborg did not think about the state's rules throughout his entire impeachment ordeal, and that those same rules were only briefly looked over ahead of a March 30, 2023 hearing before the board.

They also scrutinized Ravnsborg's propensity to identify himself as "Attorney General" on first reference.

This occurred on three occasions in which Ravnsborg was interacting with law enforcement officers or an agency:

• a June 2019 traffic stop in Nebraska,

• a July 2020 traffic stop in Iowa,

• and the Sept. 12, 2020 911 call following the crash that killed 55-year-old Joseph Boever.

In these interactions, Frieberg argued — with retired judge Bradley Zell, a Supreme Court referee in this matter, concurring — that it was Ravnsborg's intention to curry favor with law enforcement.

Frieberg later used Ravnsborg's interview with the North Dakota investigators and the following Senate impeachment hearing as evidence he was "dishonest" during the processes involving the crash.

This includes, Frieberg said, Ravnsborg's account of the September 2020 crash and the inconsistencies in the former AG's narrative that were highlighted by investigators.

Frieberg specifically honed in on one of Ravnsborg's past statements, in which he told the 911 operator the night of the crash he thought he hit something in the "middle of the road."

Evidence eventually proved Boever was hit on the shoulder of the road, which Ravnsborg did not acknowledge until he was shown said evidence, Frieberg said.

"The board felt that all of these things … was prejudicial to the administration of justice," Ravnsborg said.

Ravnsborg's lawyer: 'This is not Janklow'

In a case that came before the state Supreme Court in October 2005, the State Bar's Disciplinary Board recommended William Janklow, former South Dakota attorney general and four-term governor of the state, should have his law license suspended for a 26-month prorated period after he struck a motorcyclist with his car after running a stop sign while speeding in August 2003. It was later reinstated in January 2006, about a month before the suspension would formally expire.

In a brief filed to the judicial tribunal a week before the hearing, the board compared Ravnsborg's ordeal to Janklow's, with a specific focus on the consequences of both crashes and their status as public officials.

Janklow's law license was suspended by the South Dakota Supreme Court on Dec. 15, 2003, one day after he was convicted for second degree felony manslaughter and three misdemeanors, including speeding, running a stop sign and reckless driving by a Moody County jury.

But Butler, Ravnsborg's lawyer, frankly dismissed the board's side-by-side: "This case is not Janklow."

Butler said the specific professional conduct rules being weighed by the justices were never "an underlying issue" in Janklow's case. However, a justice clarified this was, in part, because Janklow voluntarily surrendered his license following his 2003 crash.

Ravnsborg kept his law license, though he has not practiced as a lawyer since his impeachment.

Butler addressed the board's perspective that Ravnsborg is "self-absorbed" and more concerned about his own well-being.

Butler said Ravnsborg has expressed remorse over the crash twice in writing. he also explained any victim of a life-changing event, like Ravnsborg, would be concerned about their future.

"What human being wouldn't wonder that?" Butler said.

Butler said he believed Ravnsborg could have appeared more favorably before the court if he had stepped down as attorney general following the crash.

Asked by the justices whether officials like Ravnsborg, who was considered the highest law officer and lawyer of the state, should be held to a higher standard, Butler said "yes and no."

It was true that certain public servants have a greater bar for maintaining conduct, Butler said. But there's no codified law that said Ravnsborg explicitly had to step down.

"What rule was violated here?" Butler asked.

What is the complaint against former South Dakota Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg?

The complaint against Ravnsborg, which was filed by Alexis Tracy, the former State's Attorney for Clay County, is centered on the state's Rules of Professional Conduct statute, particularly about whether Ravnsborg's actions fall under various misconduct rules.

Those rules include the following:

• committed a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;

• engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

• engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

• or stated or implied an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.

Of the four rules Zell weighed in on, he found Ravnsborg only violated one, in which he stated or implied an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.

Based on the brief provided by Ravnsborg's attorneys, Zell reviewed three incidents in which Ravnsborg's identified himself as the then-South Dakota Attorney General first rather than by name. That included:

The attorney's brief states the former attorney general did violate one misconduct rule by consistently identifying himself first by his title, as a means of possibly gaining favorable treatment by law enforcement. However, the referee said the effectiveness of this tactic would be "speculation" and "unclear."

Lawyers representing Ravnsborg, in a separate brief, align the majority of their argument that the former attorney general did not violate conduct rules with Zell's view on the matter.

Based on Zell's findings that three out of four professional conduct rules being weighed were broken by Ravnsborg, the former attorney general's lawyers argued any perception their client acted dishonestly or disrespectful is not related to his legal professional.

Zell, likewise, concurred: "[A]ll of this 'perceived' conduct is of Ravnsborg the person who happens to be an attorney, and not Ravnsborg the practicing attorney."

This article originally appeared on Sioux Falls Argus Leader: Jason Ravnsborg breaks silence during SD Supreme Court hearing