SOUTCH 

upreme our SUPREME COURT
LShhia AJ -Fer Ciefk Hh 3 Con AK

Shah Dimmg: magi; that mt; whliinui?slmm i; grime I RE STATE OF SOUTH OTA
and correct copy of the original harm! as the same appears FILED
inwhnesswhamofl have hereunose: OF THE

Wham! w?lx?gg court at Pietra this JUN 2 I, 2020
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA 

i i, sic/24W

Clerk

AMENDED ORDER OF SUSPENSION
AND ORDER OF REMAND

In the Matter of 
the Discipline of 
SCOTT R. SWIER, 
as an Attorney at Law 

#29156

WHEREAS, on February 19, 2020, this Court suspended Scott R.
Swier from the practice of law for a period of one year, effective
March 20, 2020, and

WHEREAS, on March 10, 2020 the Circuit Court in accordance
with this Court?s Order of Suspension entered its order allowing Swier
to withdraw from Busch v. Stanley County School Dist. (Stanley County
58 CIV 19~029;

WHEREAS, on May 6, 2020, an attorney for May, Adam, Gerdes 
Thompson emailed Brooke Swier and Michael Henderson of Swier Law Firm,
Prof. LLC inquiring if their client would waive findings of fact and
conclusions of law in the Busch case, and

.WHEREAS, on June 2, 2020, respondent Swier, On Swier Law
Firm, Prof. LLC letterhead, responded to May, Adam by email and said,
in part, ?Our client has not yet given us permission to waive FF 
and

WHEREAS, on June 3, 2020, counsel for the Disciplinary Board
notified this Court that respondent Swier had been communicating with
May, Adam on behalf of a client of Swier Law and attached a copy of
the email thread, and

WHEREAS, on June 8, 2020, this Court issued an order to Show
Cause why respondent Swier should not be held in contempt of the
Supreme Court?s order, SDCL 16?19?82, and why respondent Swier?s
violation of SDCL 16?19?33 (2) should not result in the extension of
his period of suspension or the revocation of his license to practice

law, and

 

 

 

#29156, Order

WHEREAS, on June 19, 2020, respondent Swier filed an
affidavit in response to the Order to Show Cause and Swier?s counsel
filed a response to the Order to Show Cause, and

WHEREAS, respondent Swier violated this Court?s Order of
Suspension by practicing law while suspended and conducting himself as
a legal assistant without the approval of this Court, SDCL 16w18?34.4
(2), now, therefore it is

ORDERED that respondent Swier?s fixed period of suspension
shall become indefinite until further Order of this Court, SDCL l6?19~
35 (2). 1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent Swier shall conduct no
business on behalf of the Swier Law Firm, shall provide no services to
the firm or clients of the firm.and shall not enter Swier Law Firm?
offices until further Order of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Swier Law Firm letterhead and
websites-shall affirmatively state that respondent Swier is under
indefinite suspension by this Court and has no legal connection with
the Swier Law Firm.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is remanded to the
Disciplinary Board of the State Bar of South Dakota to conduct a full
investigation of respondent Swier and the Swier Law Firm to determine
?if he or members of the Swier Law Firm have committed additional
violations of this Court?s Order of Suspension.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Disciplinary Board shall
furnish a report of its findings to this Court.

DATED at Pierre, South Dakota, this 24th day of June, 2020.

THE 

    
 

vmwr-?mst-?xteh; 

  
 

 

  

AT 

Cle?ryo?f rhea reme Court
(SEAL

(Justices Janine M. Kern and Patricia J. DeVaney disqualified)

 

PARTICIPATING: Chief Justice David Gilbertson and Justices Steven R. Jensen,
Mark E. Salter and Circuit Judges Susan Sabers and Carmen Means.