## Facts

- Jerome J. Holmay, a Minnesota attorney, handled a client’s dissolution of marriage matter.
- In June 1984, Holmay forged or procured the forgery of the client’s signature on a petition for dissolution and an application for temporary relief.
- Holmay notarized the forged signatures and submitted the documents to a judge.
- The documents were served on the opposing party.
- The record, as admitted, did not establish whether the client was later informed of or adopted the forged signatures.
- The Director of the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board petitioned for discipline alleging forgery/procured forgery and false notarization.
- Holmay failed to timely answer; under Rule 13(c) of the Minnesota Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility, the allegations were deemed admitted and the matter proceeded to a sanction hearing.
- Holmay later attempted to dispute facts in a filed statement; the court refused to consider disputed factual assertions because the failure to answer waived the right to contest the allegations.

## Issues

1. What discipline is appropriate when an attorney forges or procures the forgery of a client’s signature on court documents, falsely notarizes them, and submits and serves them in litigation.
2. Whether a respondent who defaults by failing to answer may later introduce disputed facts to affect the sanction determination.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court held that suspension was required for the admitted misconduct.
- The court rejected the Director’s requested 60-day suspension and imposed a 30-day suspension.
- The court treated the petition’s allegations as conclusively established due to the Rule 13(c) default and declined to consider later disputed factual claims.

## Legal Principles

- Forging (or procuring the forgery of) a client’s signature on documents intended for court use, combined with false notarization and filing/service, constitutes serious professional misconduct warranting suspension.
- False notarization of litigation documents undermines the integrity of judicial proceedings and the reliability of the notarial process and is subject to public discipline.
- In lawyer discipline proceedings, failure to timely answer permits the court to deem allegations admitted, fixing the factual record and limiting the respondent’s ability to contest or mitigate through disputed facts.
- The purpose of attorney discipline is protective, focusing on safeguarding the public, the courts, and confidence in the legal profession rather than punishment.

## Conclusion

The Minnesota Supreme Court suspended an attorney for 30 days after allegations were deemed admitted that he forged or procured the forgery of a client’s signature on dissolution-related filings, falsely notarized the signatures, and submitted and served the documents; the court also enforced procedural default rules by refusing to consider later disputed factual assertions.


In re Holmay, 399 N.W.2d 564 (Minn. 1987)