Here is the summary of decisions on attorney ethics and discipline from the Minnesota Supreme Court from May 13 - June 24, 2015.  All cases involving attorney ethics and discipline are notable, but the most unique case during this time period was Kennedy, where the dissent argued that there was an insufficient factual basis to establish a violation of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Responsibility.  Please note there were no decisions on attorney ethics and discipline issued on June 24, 2015.

1. A13-0519 In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Randall D.B. Tigue, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 110000.

After successfully completing probation, Respondent petitioned for and was granted reinstatement to the practice of law, but remains on probation through April 28, 2016.

2. Al4-1076 In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Joseph Michael Capistrant, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 187112.

The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed a petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent Joseph Michael Capistrant committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline, namely, failure to promptly return client files, in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16( d); failure to inform a client that his Wisconsin law license had been suspended and neglecting two lawsuits in Wisconsin, in violation of Wis. R. Prof. Conduct 20:1.3, 20:1.4, 20:8.4(c), and 20:8.4(d); and failure to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation, in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.1(b) and Rule 25(a), Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR). After respondent filed an answer to the petition, we referred the matter to a referee

The referee made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation. The referee concluded that respondent committed the misconduct alleged in the petition and that three aggravating favors were present, and recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended with no right to petition for reinstatement for 6 months.

The Minnesota Supreme Court followed the referee's recommendation, and suspended Respondent indefinitely, with no right to petition for reinstatement for 6 months  Reinstatement is conditioned on successful completion of the professional responsibility portion of the state bar examination, satisfaction of continuing legal education requirements pursuant to Rule 18( e), RLPR, and proof of compliance with the terms of respondent's criminal probation.

3. A13-2350 In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Herbert Azubuike Igbanugo, a Minnesota Filed: May 20, 2015 Attorney, Registration No. 191139.

A 90-day suspension is the appropriate sanction for an attorney who, among other things, failed to communicate with clients, failed to credit client fees, attempted to collect fees that had already been paid, failed to diligently represent clients, and sent harassing letters in an effort to collect legal fees. 

4. A15-0728 In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Benjamin Eugene Myers, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 341447.

The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility has filed an amended petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent Benjamin Eugene Myers committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline, namely: commencing a defamation lawsuit based on statements in a disciplinary case and attempting to talk to a judge's law clerk about the lawsuit, in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 3 .4( c) and 8.4( d) and Rule 21, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR); commencing a frivolous lawsuit, in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 3.1 and 8.4(d); harassing an assistant city attorney, in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(d) and (g); failing to appear at a petty misdemeanor trial without having properly withdrawn as counsel for the defendant, in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4, 1.16(d), 3.4(c), and 8.4(d); failing to provide a client with an accounting, in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct l.4(a)(4) and 1.15(b); and failing to maintain required trust account books and records, failing to comply with the Director's requests for copies of documents and information, and failing to comply with a court order, in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.15, 3.4(c), 8.l(b), and 8.4(d). 1 Respondent waives his procedural rights under Rule 14, RLPR, withdraws his previously filed answer, and unconditionally admits the allegations in the amended petition.

The parties jointly recommend that the appropriate discipline is a 60-day suspension and 2 years of supervised probation, and that is exactly what the Minnesota Supreme Court did.

5.  In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against William L. French, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 131945


The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed petitions for disciplinary action against respondent William L. French, alleging that French committed professional misconduct in three client matters. Following an evidentiary hearing, the referee concluded that French did not commit professional misconduct in the first two matters, but that he did violate Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), and 1.15(a) in the third matter. We conclude that the referee’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous and that a public reprimand with 1 year of supervised probation is the appropriate discipline for French’s misconduct.


6. A14-0570  In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Duane A. Kennedy, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 55128 (Dissenting, Lillehaug, Page, and Anderson, JJ.)


The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed a petition for disciplinary action against respondent Duane A. Kennedy, alleging that Kennedy committed professional misconduct by stating in a letter that his client, a complainant in a criminal sexual conduct case, would not testify against the defendant in her criminal case if the defendant settled the complainant’s civil claim for $300,000. Following an evidentiary hearing, the referee found that Kennedy violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(a) and 8.4(d) and recommended a suspension for a minimum of 90 days. We conclude that the referee’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous but that a suspension for a minimum of 30 days is the appropriate discipline for this misconduct. 


The  dissent wrote:

I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that, by assisting his client, respondent Duane Kennedy engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice under Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(a) and 8.4(d). The referee’s theory of unethical behavior, advanced by the Director, is without sufficient factual support. Perhaps realizing this, the majority constructs and applies its own theory, but that theory is similarly without sufficient support.

7. Al4-1602 In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Albert B. Beety, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 6154.


The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed a petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent Albert B. Beety committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline, namely, engaging in the practice of law while on restricted status for failing to pay his attorney registration fee and for failing to comply with continuing legal education requirements, and failing to cooperate with the Director, in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 5.5(a) and 8.l(b) and Rule 25, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR). Respondent now waives his procedural rights under Rule 14, RLPR, and unconditionally admits all of the allegations in the petition regarding his failure to cooperate with the Director and that he engaged in the unauthorized practice of law from 1994 through August 2003

In a stipulation for discipline, the parties jointly recommend that the appropriate discipline is a 60-day suspension, and that is exactly what the Minnesota Supreme Court did.


8. A14-1901 In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Gregory Gerard McPhee, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 316696

In 2007, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, suspended respondent 2 Gregory Gerard McPhee for 2 years for engaging in a pattern of client neglect, failing to return unearned fees, and failing to cooperate in disciplinary investigations. After learning of McPhee’s New York suspension, the Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility (“the Director”) petitioned to impose reciprocal discipline in Minnesota. Because we conclude that the disciplinary proceedings in New York were fundamentally fair and that indefinite suspension from the practice of law without the possibility of reinstatement for 2 years would not be unjust or substantially different from the discipline that would be imposed in Minnesota, we indefinitely suspend McPhee with no right to petition for reinstatement for 2 years.

9. A14-1843 JUN 12 2015 In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Matthew Thompson Nielsen, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 230698.

The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility has filed a petition for disciplinary action, a supplementary petition for disciplinary action, and a second supplementary petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent Matthew Thompson Nielsen committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline, namely, neglect of multiple client matters, failure to communicate with multiple clients, making false statements to and engaging in other dishonest conduct with multiple clients, making a false statement to a tribunal, and making a false statement during a disciplinary investigation, in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3, 1.4(a)(2), (3) and (4), 3.3(a)(1), 4.1, 8.1(b), and 8.4(c) and (d). Respondent waives his procedural rights under Rule 14, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR), withdraws the answer he previously filed to the petition, and unconditionally admits the allegations of the petition, supplementary petition, and second supplementary petition. The parties jointly recommend that the appropriate discipline is an indefinite suspension of a minimum of 4 months with no right to petition for reinstatement until respondent has been suspended for 60 days

In their stipulation for discipline, the parties indicate that respondent raised several issues in mitigation to the Director. The court has independently reviewed the file and indefinitely suspends respondent with no right to petition for reinstatement for 4 months.

Tim represents attorneys facing professional discipline, and consults with attorneys about whether a particular situation or proposed course of conduct implicates the Rules of Professional Conduct.  When faced with a situation that may implicate the Rules of Professional Conduct, Tim always recommends that an attorney seek an advisory opinion from the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility. 

WARNING: The information contained in this blog post does not constitute legal advice and may not be applicable to your situation.  Reading this blog post does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Baland Law Office, P.L.L.C.  Also, Tim is licensed only in state and federal courts in Minnesota.  As such, any information provided in this blog post pertains only to those jurisdictions.  Further, you should always discuss your situation with an attorney before taking any action based on what you may read in this blog.  To that end, please call (763) 450-9494 to set up an appointment to discuss your situation.

There were three orders on attorney discipline issued this week by the Minnesota Supreme Court.  The first two cases involved a public reprimand and suspension from the practice of law for a period of time.  The third case involved reinstating an attorney who was formerly suspended.

1. A15-0259, In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Richard William Hechter, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 193537.

The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility has filed a petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent Richard William Hechter committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline, namely, failing to promptly withdraw earned fees and costs from his trust account, commingling earned fees and costs with client funds in his trust account, creating shortages in his trust account, issuing trust account checks in direct payment of his own personal and/or business expenses, and failing to maintain the required trust account books and records, in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.15(a), (b), (c)(3), and (h), and Appendix 1 thereto.

The parties jointly recommend that the appropriate discipline is a public reprimand and 2 years of probation, during which respondent's books and records will be available for the Director's review.  Accordingly, that is what the Minnesota Supreme Court ordered.

2. A14-1589, In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Richard Lee Swanson, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 173423.

The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility has filed a petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent Richard Lee Swanson committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline, namely: with respect to four client matters, failing to adequately communicate with clients, failing to diligently pursue client
cases, failing to appear for hearings, failing to obtain the consent of one client to the involvement of substitute counsel, making a false statement to one client, failing to properly refund the unearned portion of clients' retainers, and failing to provide a copy of one client's file; and committing trust account violations by failing to maintain proper
trust account books and records, failing to promptly withdraw earned fees from a trust account, commingling earned fees with client funds, and failing to deposit advance attorney fees payments and an advance filing fee payment in trust, in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a)(3) and (4), 1.5(b), 1.6(a), 1.15, 1.16(d), 4.1, and 8.4(b),
(c), and (d).

The parties jointly recommend that the appropriate discipline is a 90-day suspension and 2 years of supervised probation. In their stipulation, the parties indicate that respondent presented evidence of several mitigating factors to the Director.  Accordingly, that is what the Minnesota Supreme Court ordered.

3. A14-2158, In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Shannon M. Fitzpatrick, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 345349.

By order filed on February 12, 2015, we suspended respondent Shannon M. Fitzpatrick from the practice of law for a minimum of 30 days, effective from the date of the filing of the order. Respondent has filed an affidavit seeking reinstatement in which she states that she has fully complied with the terms of the suspension order, except for
successful completion of the professional responsibility portion of the state bar examination. The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility does not oppose the request.  Accordingly, the Minnesota Supreme Court conditionally reinstated Respondent Fitzpatrick to the practice of law in the State of Minnesota, subject to her successful completion of the professional responsibility portion of the state bar examination, and is placed on
disciplinary probation for 2 years.

The Minnesota Supreme Court issued one decision (really, a brief order) last week on attorney discipline and ethics.

A14-1035, In re Petition for Reinstatement of Christopher C. Greenman, a Minnesota Attorney,Registration No. 0349719.

Attorney Greenman voluntarily resigned from the practice of law in September 2011, and then filed a petition for reinstatement on June 19, 2014.  The Court, adopting the recommendation of a panel from the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board, found that petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence his ethical fitness and competence to practice law and has met all of the conditions for reinstatement.  Accordingly, the Minnesota Supreme Court reinstated the petitioner to the practice of law in Minnesota.

Tim represents attorneys facing professional discipline, and consults with attorneys about whether a particular situation or proposed course of conduct implicates the Rules of Professional Conduct.  When faced with a situation that may implicate the Rules of Professional Conduct, Tim always recommends that an attorney seek an advisory opinion from the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility. 

WARNING: The information contained in this blog post does not constitute legal advice and may not be applicable to your situation.  Reading this blog post does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Baland Law Office, P.L.L.C.  Also, Tim is licensed only in state and federal courts in Minnesota.  As such, any information provided in this blog post pertains only to those jurisdictions.  Further, you should always discuss your situation with an attorney before taking any action based on what you may read in this blog.  To that end, please call (763) 450-9494 to set up an appointment to discuss your situation.

There was one decision this week on attorney ethics and discipline from the Minnesota Supreme Court.  The decision highlights the importance of promptly communicating with clients and returning client files after representation has concluded.

A14-1553, In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Kristi Dannette McNeilly, a Minnesota Attorney,Registration No. 341265.

The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed a petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent Kristi Dannette McNeilly committed professional misconduct, namely, engaging in a conflict of interest; after terminating representation, failing to communicate important dates to a client, failing to promptly return client files, and making misrepresentations to a District Ethics Committee investigator; bringing a lawsuit based, in part, on an ethics complaint filed with the Director; and engaging in a pattern of misconduct in mortgage modification matters by failing to act diligently, failing to adequately communicate with clients, failing to promptly return client files, attempting to charge for copying client files without the appropriate written agreement, and making misrepresentations, in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3, 1.4, l.7(a)(2), l.l6(d) and (f), 3.1, 8.1(a), and 8.4(c) and (d), and Rule 21, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR).

Respondent attorney raised mental health issues as a mitigating factor, but agreed to a public reprimand and supervised probation for three years.  Accordingly, the Minnesota Supreme Court imposed that discipline, and required the respondent to undergo a complete psychological evaluation and initiate or continue treatment for her mental illness.

Tim represents attorneys facing professional discipline, and consults with attorneys about whether a particular situation or proposed course of conduct implicates the Rules of Professional Conduct.  When faced with a situation that may implicate the Rules of Professional Conduct, Tim always recommends that an attorney seek an advisory opinion from the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility. 

WARNING: The information contained in this blog post does not constitute legal advice and may not be applicable to your situation.  Reading this blog post does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Baland Law Office, P.L.L.C.  Also, Tim is licensed only in state and federal courts in Minnesota.  As such, any information provided in this blog post pertains only to those jurisdictions.  Further, you should always discuss your situation with an attorney before taking any action based on what you may read in this blog.  To that end, please call (763) 450-9494 to set up an appointment to discuss your situation.

There were two decisions -- actually, one decision and one order -- on attorney discipline from the Minnesota Supreme Court.  The decision is noteworthy because two of the Justices, including the Chief Justice, dissented.  The order stands for the proposition that attorneys should not violate the Rules of Professional Conduct while on probation for a prior disciplinary offense.

A13-1382, In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Larry S. Severson, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 99363

The respondent attorney engaged in misconduct by entering into an investment agreement, which amounted to an unsecured $500,000 loan, and several related business transactions with a client in violation of his obligations under the rules of professional conduct regarding conflicts of interest. The attorney also made misrepresentations to a client and opposing counsel in the course of a civil lawsuit, and to the Director during the disciplinary investigation, caused harm to his client, and did not demonstrate genuine remorse for the misconduct.  Based upon these violations of the rules of professional conduct, the appropriate discipline is an indefinite suspension from the practice of law with no right to petition for reinstatement for 1 year.

The dissent argued that the Minnesota Supreme Court should have imposed a 3-month suspension, as recommended by the referee, because a longer suspension is warranted only when the attorney intentionally commits an act of dishonesty.  The dissent wrote:

A lawyer’s first responsibility is to represent his client’s interests. There is great peril for both lawyer and client when, as here, the client’s interests and the lawyer’s interests are intertwined. Severson’s failure to make his client’s interests the paramount concern necessitates discipline. Given the unique facts in this record, however, I would suspend Severson from the practice of law for 3 months as recommended by the referee.

 However, the dissent is in the minority, and the longer suspension carries the day.

A14-2158, In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Shannon M. Fitzpatrick, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 345349.

The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed a petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent Shannon M. Fitzpatrick committed professional misconduct, namely, that while on disciplinary probation, respondent cut and pasted a client's signature from another document to a stipulation for an order, with
that client's knowledge, notarized the signature, and filed the document with the district court, in violation ofMinn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(c) and (d).Respondent waived her procedural rights under Rule 14, Rules on Lawyers
Professional Responsibility (RLPR), and unconditionally admitted the allegations of the petition. In a stipulation for discipline, the parties jointly recommended that the appropriate discipline is a 30-day suspension and 2 years of probation. After filing the stipulation for discipline, respondent asked the court to make her suspension retroactive
to January 1, 2015, or in the alternative, to impose a 30-day stayed suspension.  The Minnesota Supreme Court imposed the agreed-upon discipline: a 30-day suspension.

Tim represents attorneys facing professional discipline, and consults with attorneys about whether a particular situation or proposed course of conduct implicates the Rules of Professional Conduct.  When faced with a situation that may implicate the Rules of Professional Conduct, Tim always recommends that an attorney seek an advisory opinion from the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility. 

WARNING: The information contained in this blog post does not constitute legal advice and may not be applicable to your situation.  Reading this blog post does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Baland Law Office, P.L.L.C.  Also, Tim is licensed only in state and federal courts in Minnesota.  As such, any information provided in this blog post pertains only to those jurisdictions.  Further, you should always discuss your situation with an attorney before taking any action based on what you may read in this blog.  To that end, please call (763) 450-9494 to set up an appointment to discuss your situation.

The Minnesota Supreme Court issued one decision on attorney discipline and ethics this week.  The decision involves the voluntary disbarment of an attorney who lied in a criminal investigation.  Here is the summary:

 A15-0137, In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Patrick J. Nolan, III, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 121307.


The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed a petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent Patrick J. Nolan, III, committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline, namely, being convicted of a felony for making a false statement to United States Postal Inspection Service agents during the course of a criminal investigation, in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(b) and 8.4(c).  The attorney admitted that the conduct violated the Rules of Professional Conduct, and agreed to an indefinite suspension with no right to petition for reinstatement for three years, and the Minnesota Supreme Court imposed that discipline.

There was one decision this week on attorney ethics and discipline from the Minnesota Supreme Court.  The case highlights the proposition that attorneys on probation for past disciplinary offenses will face more serious discipline if they commit another offense.

A14-0703, In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Barbara Ann Nimis, a Minnesota Attorney,Registration No. 235428.

While on probation for a prior disciplinary offense, attorney Nimis committed professional misconduct warranting public
discipline, namely, failing to comply with timelines regarding disputed personal property set forth in a judgment and decree, providing inaccurate information to a client with respect to the status of a matter, failing to comply with court rules regarding the filing of motions, failing to appear at a hearing, failing to provide notice to her client and the court that she had withdrawn from representation of a client, failing to return a client file and cooperate with successor counsel after withdrawing from representation, and failing to cooperate in the disciplinary process, in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.16(d), 3.4(c), 8.1(b), and 8.4(d), and Rule 25, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR).

As a result, the Minnesota Supreme Court suspended attorney Nimis indefinitely from the practice of law, with no right to petition for reinstatement for at least six months.

Tim represents attorneys facing professional discipline, and consults with attorneys about whether a particular situation or proposed course of conduct implicates the Rules of Professional Conduct.  When faced with a situation that may implicate the Rules of Professional Conduct, Tim always recommends that an attorney seek an advisory opinion from the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility. 

WARNING: The information contained in this blog post does not constitute legal advice and may not be applicable to your situation.  Reading this blog post does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Baland Law Office, P.L.L.C.  Also, Tim is licensed only in state and federal courts in Minnesota.  As such, any information provided in this blog post pertains only to those jurisdictions.  Further, you should always discuss your situation with an attorney before taking any action based on what you may read in this blog.  To that end, please call (763) 450-9494 to set up an appointment to discuss your situation.

There was one decision this week on attorney discipline from the Minnesota Supreme Court.  The case highlights the proposition that an attorney will be disbarred for misappropriating client funds and engaging in fraudulent conduct.  Here is the summary:

Al3-0435, In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Tedman John Heim, a Minnesota Attorney,Registration No. 286047.

In this case, the attorney committed multiple acts of misconduct, namely, misappropriation of client funds, forgery of a client's signature on a settlement check, engaging in a pattern of false statements to his client and his law partner to conceal the misappropriation, submission of misleading documents to a court and opposing counsel, failure to deposit client funds into a trust account, failure to keep required trust account books and records,making unauthorized personal charges on his law firm's business credit card, and beingconvicted of a felony charge of check forgery/falsely endorsing a check, in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.4(a), 1.15(a), 1.15(c)(3), 1.15(c)(4), 1.15(h), 3.3(a), 4.1, 8.4(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).

After a hearing, the referee recommended disbarment, and the parties stipulated (agreed) that disbarment was the appropriate discipline.  Accordingly, the attorney was disbarred.

Tim represents attorneys facing professional discipline, and consults with attorneys about whether a particular situation or proposed course of conduct implicates the Rules of Professional Conduct.  When faced with a situation that may implicate the Rules of Professional Conduct, Tim always recommends that an attorney seek an advisory opinion from the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility. 

WARNING: The information contained in this blog post does not constitute legal advice and may not be applicable to your situation.  Reading this blog post does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Baland Law Office, P.L.L.C.  Also, Tim is licensed only in state and federal courts in Minnesota.  As such, any information provided in this blog post pertains only to those jurisdictions.  Further, you should always discuss your situation with an attorney before taking any action based on what you may read in this blog.  To that end, please call (763) 450-9494 to set up an appointment to discuss your situation. 

The Minnesota Supreme Court released one decision on attorney ethics and discipline this week.  Here is the summary:

A14-0211, In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Jason William McGee, a Minnesota Attorney,Registration No. 387360. 

Attorney Jason William McGee committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline, namely, failing to timely file his 2008-2011 state income taxes, in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(d), being convicted of felony failure to pay income taxes, in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(b), failing to appear at court hearings in two matters, in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3, 3.2, and 8.4(d), and failing to cooperate with the Director, in violation of Minn. R. Prof Conduct 8.1(b) and Rule 25, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR).

The parties entered into a stipulation that the appropriate discipline is suspension from the practice of law for a minimum of 1 year with the right to petition for reinstatement after 10 months.  The Minnesota Supreme Court ordered discipline accordingly.

Tim represents attorneys facing professional discipline, and consults with attorneys about whether a particular situation or proposed course of conduct implicates the Rules of Professional Conduct.  When faced with a situation that may implicate the Rules of Professional Conduct, Tim always recommends that an attorney seek an advisory opinion from the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility. 

WARNING: The information contained in this blog post does not constitute legal advice and may not be applicable to your situation.  Reading this blog post does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Baland Law Office, P.L.L.C.  Also, Tim is licensed only in state and federal courts in Minnesota.  As such, any information provided in this blog post pertains only to those jurisdictions.  Further, you should always discuss your situation with an attorney before taking any action based on what you may read in this blog.  To that end, please call (763) 450-9494 to set up an appointment to discuss your situation. 

There was one opinion this week on attorney discipline from the Minnesota Supreme Court.  Here is the summary:

Al2-1101. In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Lori Mae Michael, a Minnesota Attorney,Registration No. 312149.

Attorney Michael was reinstated to the practice of law on November 5, 2013, conditioned on providing proof to the Clerk of Appellate Courts that she had successfully taken and passed the professional responsibility portion of the Minnesota Bar Examination by September 18, 2014.  Michael did not provide such proof, and instead requested additional time to take the examination.

In today's decision, the Minnesota Supreme Court denied the request for additional time and indefinitely suspended Michael, saying:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of respondent Lori Mae Michael for additional time in which to provide proof of her successful completion of the professional responsibility portion of the state bar examination is denied. Respondent's conditional reinstatement is revoked, and she is indefinitely suspended, effective 10 days from the
date of the filing of this order. Respondent shall comply with Rule 26, RLPR (requiring notice of suspension to clients, opposing counsel, and tribunals). Respondent may apply for reinstatement under Rule 18(t), RLPR, by filing with the Clerk of Appellate Courts and the Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility proof that she has successfully completed the professional responsibility portion of the state bar examination.

Tim represents attorneys facing professional discipline, and consults with attorneys about whether a particular situation or proposed course of conduct implicates the Rules of Professional Conduct.  When faced with a situation that may implicate the Rules of Professional Conduct, Tim always recommends that an attorney seek an advisory opinion from the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility. 

WARNING: The information contained in this blog post does not constitute legal advice and may not be applicable to your situation.  Reading this blog post does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Baland Law Office, P.L.L.C.  Also, Tim is licensed only in state and federal courts in Minnesota.  As such, any information provided in this blog post pertains only to those jurisdictions.  Further, you should always discuss your situation with an attorney before taking any action based on what you may read in this blog.  To that end, please call (763) 450-9494 to set up an appointment to discuss your situation.