In re Disbarment of Louis J. Pluto
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1945, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- Application of Smith for Reinstatement as Attorney (Minn. 1945)
- In re Smith (Minn. 1945)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Respondent has been accused by the state board of law examiners of 15 violations of the canons of ethics governing the professional conduct of lawyers. Upon reference of the matter to a district judge as referee, respondent withdrew his answer previously interposed, and the matter then stood as upon default. It would be futile to discuss at length the various accusations made against respondent. Most of the charges involve misappropriation and conversion of funds. One charge accuses him of misconduct with jurymen. Any one of them if true would justify disciplinary action. Most of them would justify disbarment. All of them together show gross indifference to respondent’s obligations to the court, his clients, and others.
*309 Respondent has now applied to this court for permission to interpose a verified amended answer which contains admissions and is pregnant with other admissions showing that so many of the accusations made against him are true that on the face of the proposed answer we can do nothing less than disbar him.
It is therefore ordered that the respondent, Louis J. Pluto, be disbarred as an attorney and counselor of this court, that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys, and that judgment of disbarment be entered accordingly.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.