Supreme Court suspends former Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg’s law license in scathing rebuke of conduct

Following fatal accident, AG exhibited 'dishonest' behavior and failed to recognize seriousness of investigation, Court rules.


Jason Ravnsborg (Photo by Dave Bordewyk, South Dakota NewsMedia Association)

Jason Ravnsborg (Photo by Dave Bordewyk, South Dakota NewsMedia Association)

Former Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg committed an ethics breach following an accident that killed a pedestrian that warranted a suspension of his law license, the South Dakota Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The decision to suspend Ravnsborg’s law license for six months overturns a decision made by a referee that the Supreme Court appointed. The High Court appointed retired Circuit Court Judge Bradley Zell to hear Ravnsborg’s appeal from a South Dakota Bar Association disciplinary board that recommended the suspension of the former attorney general’s law license for 26 months.

But Zell threw out the suspension, opting instead for a public censure of Ravnsborg for his habit of identifying himself as the attorney general when being pulled over for traffic violations – an act of using his office to escape trouble.

While the Supreme Court agreed with Zell that Ravnsborg had violated ethics standards by using his office, it also reinstated two other ethics violations in a scathing opinion on Ravnsborg’s conduct following the accident. One of those ethics violations prohibits lawyers from engaging in conduct involving fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.

Following the Sept. 12, 2021 accident that resulted in the death of Joseph Boever outside Highmore, South Dakota, the investigation into the accident was turned over to the North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigation. Under questioning, Ravnsborg initially denied using his cellphone during his drive from a political dinner in Redfield to his home in Pierre.

But when confronted with data that contradicted his denials – Ravnsborg had spoken to his father, checked email and read news articles during the journey – his story changed, the Court noted.

Like any other subject of an investigation, Ravnsborg could have maintained his constitutional right to silence, the Court noted. But when he agreed to be interviewed, he had an obligation to be honest, wrote Chief Justice Steven Jensen, who authored the 5-0 opinion.

“Ravnsborg initially denied ever using his phone while driving, except to call his father,” Jensen wrote. “He only reluctantly admitted that he ‘looked at stuff’ on his phone after he was confronted with specific information found on his phone. Even then, Ravnsborg attempted to downplay the extent of his phone usage by stating that he only used his phone to check the time.”

The ethics rules also prohibit a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. The Court determined that Ravnsborg violated that rule by remaining in office as the state’s top prosecutor while being investigated for homicide.

Even at the time of the oral argument before the Supreme Court earlier this year, it was evident that Ravnsborg failed to consider the seriousness of the investigation and what his impact in staying in office had on the public, Jensen wrote.

“Each decision he made was influenced by personal aspirations and political survival rather than his responsibility to serve the public and uphold the integrity of his office,” Jensen wrote. “Ravnsborg’s actions cast a cloud of needless scrutiny on the office of the attorney general. His actions raised genuine doubts about whether he could fulfill his responsibilities as the state’s chief law enforcement officer.”

In reaching its opinion, the Court noted Ravnsborg’s military service in the U.S. Army Reserve as one mitigating factor. But his conduct following the accident – his dishonesty to investigators, failure to view the investigation with appropriate seriousness, and his attempt to again use his office – warranted a suspension, Jensen wrote.

The State Bar Association’s ethics recommendation was a 26-month suspension retroactive to June 21, 2022, the date in which he was removed from the South Dakota state Senate following an impeachment trial. But the Supreme Court’s six-month suspension is not retroactive.

“While Ravnsborg is unlikely to continue practicing law in South Dakota, we conclude suspension is necessary to preserve the integrity of the profession and deter like conduct by other attorneys,” Jensen wrote. “The six-month suspension shall commence on the date of entry of the order of suspension.”

The Court also ruled that Ravnsborg is responsible for reimbursing the State Bar for its expenses related to its discipline. The former attorney general cannot get his license back until those are repaid.

NOTE: The Dakota Scout is an independent organization with editorial decisions made without consideration to their paid advertisers.