Welcome! Please view our students' work on their case summaries this term:
Student
Name: Alesha Quam
Link
for Opinion: http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.msbcollege.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/
Title: Minnesota Attorney Suspended for Signing
Former Client’s Name on Case Brief
In
In re Grigsby, 815 N.W. 2d 836 (Minn.
2012) the Supreme Court in Minnesota suspended Stephen Vincent Grigsby for 60
days, the attorney was required to pay $900 in costs pursuant to Rule 24 RLPR,
and he must also serve upon the Director proof of his effective achievement of
the professional responsibility portion of the state bar examination within one
year, for practicing law while under suspension and falsely signing a client’s
name to a court document.
The
Minnesota Supreme Court determined that Steven Vincent Grigsby violated Minn.
R. Prof. Conduct 1.2 (a), 3.3(a)(1), 4.1, 8.4(c) and (d) and 5.5(a) when he,
without prior approval, wrote and filed an appellate brief for a former client
while he was suspended from practicing law and then signed the former client’s
name to the brief and indicated the client was pro se.
The
lawyer argued that he believed he had a duty under Rule 1.16 (d) to protect his
former client’s interests by writing and filing the brief himself, as he believed
the client would not have understood the situation he was in and would’ve
failed to submit the brief in a timely manner.
The court disagreed with Grigsby’s argument stating he had several other
alternatives including; seeking an extension of time for the brief to be filed
and warning the court of appeals of the situations. By writing and signing the
client’s name to the brief, Grigsby created a false dilemma. The court believes
signing a client’s name to a court document is a very serious matter but
disciplined Grigsby according to the fact that the client had given him
permission to sign the case brief see also In
re Riggs, 664 N.W. 2d 290, 290 (Minn. 1979).
This
case teaches the importance of an attorney’s duty under Minn. R. Prof. Conduct
3.3 (a) (1) that says “a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of
fact or law to a tribunal, or fail to correct a false statement of material
fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer.” This case also demonstrates the importance of
Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4 (c) and (d) which states “it is misconduct for a
lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation…it is misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that is
prejudicial to the administration of justice.”
Labels
for this post: Legal ethics, lawyer suspension, false statements, signature
forgery, Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 3.3 and 8.4
______________________________________
Student
Name: Bridget Brooks
Link for opinion: http://mn.gov/lawlib/archive/supct/1109/ORA111156-0830.pdf
Title: Minnesota: Petition for Disciplinary
Action after conviction of three (3) felony-controlled substance crimes.
In In re
Baer, 802 N.W.2d 360 (Minn. 2011), the Director of the Office of Lawyers
Professional Responsibility filed a petition for disciplinary action alleging
that the respondent David Eric Baer’s conviction of three (3) felony-controlled
substance crimes are conclusive evidence of his violation of Minn. R. Prof.
Conduct 8.4 (b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's
honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.
Respondent waived his procedural rights under
Rule 14, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR), and admits the
allegations of the petition. The parties jointly recommend the appropriate
discipline is a public reprimand and probation for a period coextensive with
respondent’s three (3) year criminal probation.
The respondent, David Eric Baer, was then
subject to the following terms and conditions while being placed on probation
for the period of his coextensive criminal probation:
(a) Respondent shall cooperate fully with the
efforts of the Director's Office to monitor compliance with this probation.
Respondent shall promptly respond to the Director's correspondence by its due
date. Respondent shall provide the Director with a current mailing address and
shall immediately notify the Director of any change of address. Respondent
shall cooperate with the Director's investigation of any allegations of
unprofessional conduct that may come to the Director's attention. At the
Director's request, respondent shall authorize the release of information and
documentation to verify compliance with the terms of this probation.
(b) Respondent shall abide by the Minnesota
Rules of Professional Conduct.
(c) Respondent shall maintain total abstinence
from all controlled substances, except that respondent may use prescription
drugs in accordance with the directions of a prescribing physician.
(d) Respondent shall continue counseling
through Jewish Family and Children's Service, attending counseling sessions at
least once per month. Respondent shall, without a specific reminder or request,
submit to the Director quarterly attendance verifications on a form provided by
the Director. The Director may, at his sole discretion, waive this requirement
after the first six months of probation.
(e) Respondent shall comply with all
conditions of his criminal sentence and probation.
The respondent was also charged with a fine of
$900 in costs and disbursements pursuant to Rule 24 of the RLPR.
This teaches us that no one is above the law.
The personal decisions you make in your own life could affect you as well as in
your professional career. An attorney is to hold a higher resect for themselves
if they would like to pass on that confidence to their clients.
_________________________________________
Student
Name: Brittany Vatalaro
Link for opinion:
http://lprb.mncourts.gov/LawyerSearch/casedocs/Jaeger-A11-182-08112011.pdf
Title: Minnesota Lawyer Ordered to Retire and
Close Law Firm Because of Professional Misconduct
In In re Jaeger, 801 N.W.2d 185 (2011), the
Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed a petition regarding the
conduct of Hugh D. Jaeger. The court agreed with their accusations and
suspended Jaeger for a minimum of 120 days for professional misconduct. As
conditions of this suspension, Jaeger was also ordered to retire and terminate
his law firm. He is not allowed to seek reinstatement at any time in the future
with any jurisdiction after August 31, 2011.
His misconduct included signing documents
without client consent, failing to return client files, neglecting the client’s
matters several times, and failing to cooperate with the disciplinary
investigation. Jaeger was in violation of in violation of Minn. R. Prof.
Conduct 1.3, 1.15(c) (4), 1.16(d), 4.1, 8.1(b), and 8.4(c), and Rule 25 of the
Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility.
His neglect of his client’s needs falls under
Minn. R. Prof. Conduct Rule 1.3, which states that a lawyer must act with
promptness and reasonable diligence when representing a client. By failing to
return his client’s files, Jaeger also violated Rule 1.16(d). Under this rule,
a lawyer must surrender applicable papers and property back to the client upon
termination of representation. Also, under Rule 1.15(c)(4), a lawyer is
required to “promptly pay or deliver to the client or third person as requested
the funds, securities, or other properties in the possession of the lawyer
which the client or third person is entitled to receive”.
By signing client’s documents without their
consent, Jaeger violated Rule 4.1, which states that a lawyer cannot knowingly
make a false statement of fact or law. Also, Rule 8.4(c) prohibits any act of
untruthfulness, deception, fraud or misrepresentation.
During the investigation of this matter,
Jaeger was not cooperative. This is a violation of Rule 8.1(b), which states
that a lawyer shall not “knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for
information from an admissions or disciplinary authority…”.
This case shows the devastating effect of
malpractice. Mistakes and violation of the code of ethics have serious
consequences when practicing law. Because of Jaegers actions, and avoidance of
certain actions, he has lost his career and business.
Labels for the post: legal ethics, fraud,
terminate law practice, Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, 1.15(c)
(4), 1.16(d), 4.1, 8.1(b), and 8.4(c)
_________________________________________
Student
Name: Damita Nelling
Link
for Order: http://mn.gov/lawlib/archive/supct/1104/ORA091998-0412.pdf
Title:
Lawyer Suspended for Bringing Defamation Action That Had No Basis in Law or
Fact
In re Gant, 796 N.W.2d 310
(Minn. 2011), on June 8, 2010 the Minnesota Supreme Court publicly reprimanded
an attorney with sanctions and fines assessed by the district court and court
of appeals in the amount of $1000 dollars per month beginning on July 1, 2010
until the amount was paid in full for bringing a defamation action that had no
basis in law or fact. If said attorney did not make the agreed payments as
ordered, upon request of the Director, he would have the opportunity to be
heard, and could face additional discipline as the court deemed appropriate. In
November 2010, the Director notified the courts that the lawyer had only made
one payment and requested his suspension, subject to immediate reinstatement
subject to the original sanctions. Despite the lawyers attempted response to
request a 60-day stay of further discipline, the court imposed the suspension
and other discipline.
The
Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the referee’s conclusion that the lawyer
committed professional misconduct by bringing a defamation action that had no
basis in law or fact, a violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 3.1 and 8.4(d).
The
lawyer’s defamation suit lacked merit because his claim was unfounded as he was
unable to provide proof that a statement made by the opposing party was false,
he also could not have argued in good faith or with reasonable thought that
existing law supported his clients claims, and the lawyer had knowledge from
past litigation of what the absolute privilege doctrine entailed.
What
is to be learned by this case is that a lawyer shall not under Rule 3.1 bring
or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless this
is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a
good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing
law. The Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(d)
also states that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to “engage in
conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.”
This
case teaches that the court took it very seriously when the lawyer failed to
follow court ordered sanctions by imposing a 90 days suspension and he had to
comply with Rule 26 of the Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR),
which requires that he send a notice of suspension to his clients, opposing
counsel, and tribunals. He was also assessed court costs, and had to re-file
with the Clerk of Appellate Courts and had to provide an affidavit that he was
current with continuing education requirements. It also stated that failure to
complete any or all of the imposed sanctions would result in automatic
re-suspension.
Labels
for the post: sanctions, suspension, Rule 26 (RLPR)
_______________________________________
Student
Name: Danica Halvorson
Title: Minnesota: Lawyer Suspended for Neglecting Client
Matters
In In
re O’Brien, 809 N.W.2d 463 (Minn. 2012), the Minnesota Supreme Court
suspended a lawyer for a minimum of 90 days for knowingly neglecting two client
matters, failing to keep the client reasonably informed, did not return
client’s files in a timely manner, failed to cooperate with the Director’s
investigation, and acted in bad faith throughout the disciplinary proceedings.
The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the
referee’s conclusions that the lawyer knowingly neglecting client matters, did
not cooperate with the Director’s investigation, and acted in bad faith in
violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.15(c)(4), 1.16(d), 3.2,
and 8.1(b), and Rule 25, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR).
The lawyer, who agreed to represent his
client in two matters, also failed to meet the deadline imposed by the court of
appeals in the first matter, which resulted in the dismissal of his client’s
appeal. The lawyer then failed to inform his client that he had missed the
filing deadlines and the court had dismissed the appeal. In the second matter
regarding the conciliation court, the lawyer failed to manage any of the
discovery requested by his client. His client regularly tried to contact him in
regards to the status of the conciliation court matter and the progress of
discovery; however he was hardly successful in communicating with his lawyer.
Once the lawyer’s client did speak with him, the lawyer assured that everything
was going well. After the lawyer never conducted the requested discovery, the
client made several requests to return files back. After two months, the lawyer
returned only a portion of the files on his client’s car. The lawyer’s client
submitted a complaint to the Director’s office where the Director mailed the
lawyer a notice of investigation. The notice requested a written response
within 14 days; however the lawyer failed to respond by the deadline. The court
held that an attorney who fails to not file a brief on behalf of his client,
fails to conduct discovery as requested, does not keep his client reasonably
informed, fails to return client files in a timely manner, and fails to
cooperate with the Director’s disciplinary investigation is warranted for
suspension. Because the lawyer neglected his client and was non-cooperative,
these actions constitute serious misconduct. See also In re Cutting, 671 N.W.2d 173, 174 (Minn. 2003).
This case teaches the importance of the
lawyer’s duty under Rule 1.4 that states a lawyer shall “keep the client
reasonably informed about the status of the matter [and] promptly comply with
reasonable requests for information.” In addition, Rule 25, RLPR states that
“it shall be the duty of any lawyer who is the subject of an investigation or
proceeding under these Rules to cooperate with the District Committee, the
Director, or the Director’s staff, the Board, or a Panel, by complying with
reasonable requests.”
Labels for the post: legal ethics, lawyer
suspended, Rule 1.4, neglecting client matters, Rules on Lawyers of
Professional Responsibility, Rule 25
__________________________________________
Student
Name: Eamonn Kingsbury
Link for opinion: http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20WICO%2020121130C97.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR
Title:
Public Reprimand for attorney who Failed to Abide by Client's Decisions
In In re Gorokhovsky, 824 N.W.2d 804
(Wis. 2012), the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that public reprimand was
warranted for this attorney who violated the Wisconsin Rules of Professional
Conduct by failing to consult with his client and abide by his client's
decisions regarding representation.
The
Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the referee's findings of fact and conclusions
of law, and agreed with the referee's recommendation regarding discipline.
Accordingly, the court concluded that Attorney Gorokhovsky's misconduct
required a public reprimand. They also
agreed with the referee that attorney Gorokhovsky bear the full costs of this
disciplinary proceeding. He was
reprimanded for violating SCR 20:8.4(c) and SCR 22.03(6), which involve
misconduct. He was also in violation of
SCR 20:1.5(a). This is for unreasonable
fees stemming from his $8,000.00 in attorney fees.
This
case shows the importance of an attorney following the rules of misconduct
under SCR 20:8.4(c) and SCR 22.03(6).
SCR 20:8.4(c) states that an attorney cannot “engage in conduct
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation”. This was done when the attorney knowingly did
not follow what the client wanted. In
addition, the attorney was also reprimanded for the $8,000.00 in attorney’s
fees. SCR 20:1.5(a) states that “A
lawyer shall not make an agreement for, charge, or collect an unreasonable fee
or an unreasonable amount for expenses.”
The court deemed that this price was too heavy for the work provided.
Labels
for the post: legal services, attorney reprimanded, failing to abide by
client’s decisions
__________________________________________
Student Name: Haisley Brenner
Wisconsin:
Lawyer Reprimanded for Sexual Professional Misconduct
In
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Arellano, 346 Wis. 2d 340 (S.C. 2013), the Supreme Court of
Wisconsin publically reprimanded an attorney for two counts of professional
misconduct of misrepresentations to the OLR and District 9 Committee and making
unsolicited phone calls to a future client. The Supreme Court of
Wisconsin confirmed the referee’s conclusion that Arellano knowingly violated
SCR 22.03 (6) via SCR 20:8:4 (h) by misleading the District Committee and being
untruthful about his answers during their investigation of his actions against
N.S.M. Also, the referee concluded that he also violated SCR 20:7.3. (c) by
contacting his previous client S.F. and soliciting to her over the telephone to
get her to hire him for her services.
Also,
the referee filed a report stating that Arellano pay all costs in result of the
hearings including attorney costs and court costs adding up to $40,960.49. In
cases involving extraordinary circumstances, this could be lowered. Arellano’s
case was considered extraordinary because Office of Lawyer Regulation
voluntarily dismissed six of the fourteen counts right in the beginning.
Because of this, Arellano was ordered to pay half of the first initial amount,
which is $20,480.25.
This
case shows how much a career can be affected if Rule 1.8 (j) is not followed.
Rule 1.8 (j) says, “a lawyer shall not have sexual relations with a current
client unless a consensual sexual relationship existed between them when the
client-lawyer relationship commenced.” Just from allegedly having sexual
relations with multiple former clients of him, Arellano was put into a lengthy
hearing that took two years to conclude from the first complaint in 2010.
Besides the alleged sexual relations, he was accused of unsolicitated telephone
calls, harassment and lying to the district committee. The sexual relations
were just the beginning of the mess that he got himself into.
Labels:
sexual misconduct, unsolicited, Arellano, OLR, public reprimand, professional
misconduct
__________________________________________
Student
Name: Judy Warren
Title:
Wisconsin Judge Engages in Judicial Misconduct
The
Wisconsin Judicial Commission filed a judicial misconduct complaint against
Justice David T. Prosser, indicating that on June 13, 2011 he engaged in
judicial misconduct pursuant to Wis. Stat. §757.81, requesting that appropriate
discipline be imposed.
Justice
Prosser’s behavior escalated from tantrums and rage, to threats, and physical
contact. An e-mail was sent on February 18, 2010 advising the other justices
that steps needed to be taken to address the abusive temper tantrums.
In
February 2010 there was a meeting with the Director of State Courts asking
that, “…something be done about the escalation in the violent behavior.”
Nothing happened in response to this meeting.
In
March of 2011 it appeared to others that Prosser’s behavior was becoming
increasingly agitated. Enhanced security
was planned out due to concerns that Justice Prosser’s behavior posed a threat
to physical safety of those he worked with.
With
all of the extra steps taken it did not stop him from attacking another justice
on the evening of June 13, 2011. He got agitated and grabbed the neck of
another Justice with both of his hands. The Dane County Sheriff’s office gave
its findings to the County District Attorney, who referred the matter to
special prosecutor Patricia Barrett. She ultimately ruled in in August 2011
that the circumstances and evidence reviewed did not support the filing of
criminal charges. On March 16, 2012, the Wisconsin Judicial Commission filed an
ethical complaint against Prosser. However, three conservative members of the
court recused themselves from the matter, with the result that no quorum
existed, and no decision could be made.
This
case was heard by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. The case number is
2012AP566-J Wisconsin Judicial Commission v. David T. Prosser, Jr.
________________________________________
Student Name: Kathy McSpadden
Link for Opinion: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5353396420920436085&q=Peter+James+Nickitas&hl=en&as_sdt=2,31
Title: Minnesota: Attorney Suspended For
Inappropriate Conduct Toward Opposing Counsel and Other Acts of Misconduct
In In
re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Peter James Nickitas, a Minnesota
Attorney, Registration No. 212313, Minnesota Supreme Court Docket No.
A12-0821, Filed May 7, 2013, this attorney was suspended for a minimum of 30
days, followed by 2 years of supervised probation for the following acts of
misconduct: 1) undertaking
representation despite a conflict of interest; 2) engaging in inappropriate
conduct toward opposing counsel; and 3) bringing a claim in bad faith and for
an improper purpose.
The Petition of the Director of the
Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility alleged that Respondent Peter
James Nickitas (“Respondent”) violated rules 1.7(a)(2), 3.1, 4.4(a), and 8.4(d) of the
Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct; Respondent withdrew his answer to the
Petition and admitted to allegations as stated in the Petition. The Minnesota Supreme Court agreed with the
terms and recommendation of the Referee that Respondent should have his license
suspended for thirty days; however, the Court did not agree with the Referee
recommendation for unsupervised probation and the Court ordered that “. . . the
public would be better protected if the Respondent's probation is
supervised.”
The Court further ordered that
Respondent must comply with Rule 26 of the Rules of Lawyers Professional
Responsibility (RLPR), which requires that he give notice of license suspension
to his clients, opposing counsel and tribunals; Respondent must pay $900.00 in
costs and disbursements pursuant to Rule 24 of RLPR; and the Respondent will be
eligible to reinstate his license to practice law after fulfilling requirements
of continuing legal education and has complied with Rules 24 and 26, RLPR and
has complied with any other conditions for reinstatement which the Court has
imposed.
The Court also ordered that Respondent
fully cooperate with the Director's Office in monitoring the supervised
probation which will be supervised by a licensed Minnesota attorney appointed
by the Director and follow other probationary
guidelines set forth by the Court and the Director. Within 1 year of the date of the Court's
Order the Respondent shall serve upon the Director and file with the Clerk of
Appellate Courts a proof of successful completion of the professional responsibility
portion of the state bar exam. Failure
to timely file the required documentation shall result in automatic
re-suspension provided in Rule 18(e)(3), RLPR.
__________________________________________
Student
Name: Kayla Masterson
Link for opinion: http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20SDCO%2020090212272.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR
Title:
South Dakota Attorney Suspended from Practice for Neglecting Clients
In
In re Reynold, 762 N.W.2d 341 (2009),
Michael Reynolds was suspended from practicing law for three years for
neglecting his clients. He had been given the chance to rectify the situation
by the South Dakota Disciplinary Board, and failed to do so. Upon his possible
readmission to the Bar he would have to take the Multistate Professional
Responsibility Exam and pass. He also would have to take a law office
management course. Following this he would have to have a psychological
evaluation done and the results would need to be turned into the Board.
Finally, he also had to reimburse the Judicial System and the Bar for the costs
of his case.
Reynolds
was to appear before the Court to show cause. No communication was received
from Reynolds. The Court ruled that he neglected to reply to a client after
many attempts of reaching him. Reynolds admitted to violating Rules 1.3, 1.4,
1.5, 1.7 and 8.4(a)(c). The court ordered a Private 60 Agreement in which he
was to have a psychological evaluation; all his cases were to undergo a review,
biweekly review of any new cases and reporting requirements.
Upon
multiple amendments to the agreement and due process hearings, Reynolds still
was failing to adhere to the implemented rules and neglecting his clients. By
doing so there were consequences that affected the client’s cases. The court
found that he had violated Rule 1.3 and 1.4; while he openly admitted to
violating Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.7 and 8.4(a)(c). After the multiple chances he
was then disciplined with a three year suspension from practicing law.
This
case ultimately teaches how important it is to be diligent and organized.
Procrastination in the legal field is not welcome. These clients count on the
services that attorneys provide and in situations like this the legal system
failed the multiple clients Reynolds had by causing non rectifiable
consequences.
Labels
for the post: legal ethics, lawyer suspended, rule 1.3, rule 1.4, rule 1.5,
rule 1.7, rule 8.4(a), rule 8.4(c)
________________________________________
Student
Name: Lindsay Kuhbander
Attorney Disbarment: Unethical
Practice of Law
Link for opinion: http://www.ndcourts.gov/court/opinions/20120237.htm
In the case of Board v. McDonagh,
822 N.W.2d 468 (N.D. 2012), disciplinary action was brought against a Minnesota
attorney, Alan
Martin McDonagh, for using client funds to pay for
the law firm expenses, failure to place client funds into designated trust
accounts, forging another attorney’s signature, and withholding funds from
other business partners. The courts ruled for McDonagh to be disbarred and
ordered to pay restitution in costs and disbursements.
The Supreme Court recommended that
McDonagh be suspended for three years; pay $8,000.00 in restitution and the
costs of the discipline proceedings. The Courts found that McDonagh violated
N.D. Rules of Professional Conduct 1.5, 1.15(a), 1.15(c), 1.15(d), and 8.4(c).
The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court agreed with the Supreme Court’s
recommendation of restitution, but rejected the recommendation of suspension
and instead ordered disbarment.
In
May 2006, McDonagh failed to deposit an advance payment of $3000.00 of client
funds into a client trust account. When confronted with the misconduct McDonagh
could not provide an explanation or return client funds.
In
January 2009, McDonagh wanted to obtain a $150,000.00 line of credit from
Choice Financial. McDonagh planned to offered land as collateral, but knew that
Choice Financial would need another attorney to complete the title opinions.
McDonagh took it upon himself to write the title opinions and created documents
appearing as though another attorney, Ryan Norrell, created them by using
Norrell’s letterhead and forging his signature on the title opinions.
As
a co-owner of Biliske & Merrill Real Estate Marketers, LLC, McDonagh
deceived his co-owners by telling them he had not received payment from July
2010 through spring of 2011. The co-owners eventually discovered that McDonagh
was lying and that he had misapplied the funds.
In
May or June 2011, McDonagh confessed to Ralph Carter, a senior partner at
Carter, McDonagh, and Sandberg, that he spent client retainers to pay for law
firm expenses instead of depositing the funds into client trust accounts. The
misapplied funds amounted to $28, 448.00 in client funds stemming from nineteen
different clients. It was later revealed that McDonagh had also misapplied $21,500.00
in client funds involving six additional clients.
A
disciplinary petition was filed which stated that McDonagh violated N.D. Rules
of Professional Conduct 1.5 (a) for taking fees that were warranted and N.D.
Rules of Professional Conduct 1.15 (a), (c), and (d) for not safekeeping client
funds and property, and 8.4 (c) for misconduct. These violations are the result
of McDonagh misapplying client funds, forging another attorney’s signature, and
misusing profits. McDonagh knowingly committed the following acts and was aware
of how his actions may affect his clients, business partners, and attorneys,
therefore McDonagh was disbarred.
This
case is example of an attorney who was trying to get ahead in the wrong ways
and it eventually resulted in him losing his license to practice. The
disciplinary board was fair in their rulings by taking into account the
severity of McDonagh’s violations, in addition to the deceit and turmoil he
inflicted upon his clients, attorneys, and business partners. Profiting off
others by scheming them out of their money is wrong and in the end is not worth
the consequences and tainted reputation.
__________________________________________
Student
Name: Maija Neuman
Link for opinion: http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?cite=N.W.2d&rs=WLW13.04&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&utid=1&fn=_top&mt=Minnesota&sv=Split
Minnesota: Lawyer Suspended for Violating
Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct
In In re Murrin 821 N.W.2d 195 (Minn. 2012), the Minnesota Supreme
Court suspended an attorney for a minimum of 6 months for violating rules of
the professional conduct, and is required to petition for reinstatement in
order to practice law according to Rule 18(a)-(d), RLPR.
The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the referee found the
attorney had filed many frivolous pleadings in Minnesota Courts in violation of
Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 3.2, and 8.4(d).
The lawyer filed frivolous
pleadings in three separate 1. Hennepin County District Court; 2. United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota, and 3. United States Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Minnesota because he and his wife were victims of a
Ponzi scheme losing $600,000.00 of their own money. The complaints filed by the
lawyer failed to show what the claims were, contain short plan statements, and
to give the Defendants fair proper notice of the allege claims against them.
The lawyer failed to show understanding of the damage the complaints that were
filed did to the defendants, and that the lawyer displayed a delusional
attitude towards the evidence presented against him. The Supreme Court held
that: 1. the attorney had violated rules
of professional conduct by rushing
litigation and 2. The six months suspension was sufficient enough for a
punishment as long as the lawyer petitions to be reinstated to practice
law.
This case teaches the importance of the lawyer’s duty
under Rule 3.2, and 8.4(d). Rule 3.2 states “A lawyer shall make reasonable
efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interest of the client.”
Rule 8.4(d) states “It is a professional misconduct for a lawyer to: engage in
conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Labels for the post: legal ethics, violation of Minnesota
Rules of Professional Conduct, lawyer suspended, Rule 3.2, and Rule 8.4(d)
______________________________________
Student
Name: Melissa Adreon
Link to the opinion: http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=1&xmldoc=In
MNCO 20120418372.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR&SizeDisp=7
Title: Minnesota Lawyer
Suspended for Illegally Purchasing Controlled Substance
In re disciplinary action against Cunningham, 812
N.W.2d 825 (2012), the
Minnesota Supreme Court suspended Jennifer Lynn Cunningham’s license to
practice law. This came about after allegations were made that Cunningham
illegally purchased a controlled substance from a client. This was a violation
of the Minnesota Rules of Responsibility in conduct, 8.4(b). Cunningham pleaded
guilty to the charges and agreed that she violated the rules. She pleaded
guilty to 5th degree controlled substance and the courts stayed her
adjudication and placed her on probation.
Cunningham
and the director of the Minnesota Board of Professional Responsibility can to
the agreement that her license be suspended for a minimum of 90 days and that
she be on probation. During this probation period she will be under supervision
of the director and have conditions with her license. The conditions include
that of complying with rule 26 and notify the opposing counsel as well as
clients to inform them about her suspension. She also needs to pay $900 for the
rule 24. Cunningham can be reinstated at the time the suspension is done as
long as she files an affidavit proving that she is doing the education that is
needed. She also needs to be sure to abide by all rules of the professional
responsibility. Cunningham must also stay away from all alcohol and drugs and
attend regular AA and NA meetings with proof of attendance. She also needs to
show proof of taking the professional responsibility portion of the bar exam.
What I have learned from
this case is that you can get in trouble even if you are working for the
courts. You need to make sure you are following the rules of professional
responsibility because one time of getting in trouble can take everything you
have worked so hard for away really quick. Lawyers have rules to follow just
like anybody else. It is just not worth it.
Tags form article: Rule 8.4, Suspended, probation
__________________________________________
This case communicates the prominence of the lawyer’s duty under RPC 8.4(b) which states: “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to….commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyers’ honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a layer in other respects. It also interconnects with Minnesota Rule of Professional Conduct 1.3 which states “A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." Minnesota Rule of Professional Conduct 1.4(b) states: "A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.
__________________________________________
Student
Name: Samantha Schliep
Link
for opinion: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6786029494349391720&q=minnesota%2Bdisbarred+attorneys&hl=en&as_sdt=2,24
Title:
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Pitera, Minn: Supreme Court 2013
In
re Brian Louis Pitera, No. A12-0274
Sup. Ct. Minn. (2013), the Minnesota Supreme Court disbarred Pitera from the
practice of law in Minnesota. The Supreme Court further ordered that Pitera
comply with Rule 26, RLPR, and pay $900 in costs, pursuant to Rule 24, RLPR for
assaulting his roommate, failing to pay a law-related judgment, appear at a
hearing, communicate his anticipated absence at that hearing to the district
court or his client, refund any portion of an unreasonable fee, and cooperate
with the disciplinary action.
The
Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the referee’s conclusions that the lawyer
knowingly failed to refund an unearned fee violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3,
1.4(b), 1.5(a), 3.2, 3.4(c), and 8.4(d).
Because
of Pitera’s prior disciplinary history it is an aggravating factor when
deciding appropriate discipline. See Lundeen, 811 N.W.2d at 609. Furthermore
the court decided, "We generally impose more severe sanctions when the
current misconduct is similar to the misconduct for which an attorney has
already been disciplined."
This case communicates the prominence of the lawyer’s duty under RPC 8.4(b) which states: “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to….commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyers’ honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a layer in other respects. It also interconnects with Minnesota Rule of Professional Conduct 1.3 which states “A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." Minnesota Rule of Professional Conduct 1.4(b) states: "A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.
What
Brian Pitera has done is unethical. He violated several Rules of Professional
Conduct. Such as rule 1.3, 1.4, 8.4. I believe that the Minnesota Supreme Court
was justified in making their decision.
Labels for the post: legal ethics, disbarred attorneys, Rule 8.4, Rule 1.3, Rule 3.4
Labels for the post: legal ethics, disbarred attorneys, Rule 8.4, Rule 1.3, Rule 3.4
___________________________________________
Student
Name: Stacie Patnode
Title: Minnesota Attorney Disbarred Following
Conviction of Twelve Felony Counts of Fraud
In
Minnesota Supreme Court
In re Disciplinary
Action Against Morris, 827 N.W.2d 427 (Minn.
2013), attorney, William John
Morris was convicted of 12 felony counts for his participation in a
fraudulent scheme with his mother that resulted in the receipt of over $3.5
million and was sentenced to 132 months in prison.
The
Director of Professional Responsibility filed a petition on June 1, 2012
alleging that Morris violated Rules 8.4 (b) and (c) of the Minnesota Rules of
Professional Conduct and recommended that Morris be disbarred. Morris did not respond to the petition
pursuant to Rule 13(b) of the Rules on Lawyer Professional Responsibility. The Minnesota Supreme Court deemed the
allegations admitted, agreed with the Director of Professional Responsibility,
and ordered that Morris be disbarred.
Morris and his mother
formed the corporation CyberStudy in 1996 to market an educational software
program primarily to minorities in low-income communities. Morris led his customers to believe that they
would receive free computers and internet access without cost after registering
to receive the educational software. Morris forged his customer’s signatures on
Power-of-Attorney forms authorizing CyberStudy to file tax returns on behalf of
its customers and used registration information to file tax returns for
Minnesota Education Credit on behalf of those customers. He listed CyberStudy bank account information
to obtain the refunds. If a tax refund
was rejected Morris threatened to report customers to the deportation authorities
in an attempt to collect the funds.
Morris also defrauded
Kmart by entering into a contract with the company under false pretenses. As a result Kmart delivered around $1.2
Million worth of computers to CyberStudy without pre-payment. Kmart was later
able to obtain a judgment against CyberStudy which has never been paid.
Rules 8.4(b) and (c) of
the Rules of Professional Conduct states an attorney has engaged in
professional conduct by committing a criminal act that reveals the attorney to
be dishonest or untrustworthy; or an attorney who misrepresents the truth,
engages in dishonest, fraudulent, or deceitful activity. This case shows the
importance of honesty in legal practice in addition to the devastating effect
one legal professional’s actions can have on the community and the reputation
of the legal community.
This case teaches the importance of the lawyer’s duty
under Rule 3.3(a)(1) that states a lawyer shall not knowingly “make a false
statement of fact or law to a tribunal, or fail to correct a false statement of
material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer.” In
additional, Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 4.1 states “In the course of representing a
client a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law.”
Labels for the post:
Rule 8.4, disbarred, felony, fraud, forged, defraud, deceit, misconduct, prison