There were three decisions on unemployment benefits from the Minnesota Court of Appeals on Monday 8/31/15.  The first two cases stand for the proposition that an applicant for unemployment benefits must be available for suitable employment.  The first case is unique because it was reversed.  The third case was affirmed, and is a fairly typical misconduct case where the applicant was found ineligible for unemployment benefits because of employment misconduct.

1. A15-0072 Michelle Davidsavor, Relator, vs. Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent

Relator raises procedural and substantive challenges to an unemployment-law judge’s decision that she was ineligible for unemployment benefits.  The Appeals Court ruled that "[t]he situation did not demand greater procedural protections than Davidsavor received; therefore, the ULJ’s decision was not made upon unlawful procedure or in violation of constitutional provisions."  However, the Appeals Court 'conclude[d] that the ULJ’s finding that Davidsavor was not available for and actively seeking suitable employment after August 31, 2014, is “unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted.”'  As such, the Appeals Court reversed the determination that Davidsavior was ineligible for unemployment benefits.

2. A15-0053 Ahmed Ghanim, Relator, vs. FedEx Kinko’s Office and Print Services, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Relator Ahmed Ghanim challenges the unemployment-law judge’s determination that he was ineligible for benefits because he was not actively seeking suitable employment. Because substantial evidence in the record supports the unemployment-law judge’s determination, we affirm.

3. A15-0096 Courtney Paulson, Relator, vs. General Nutrition Center, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Relator Courtney Paulson challenges an unemployment-law judge’s determination that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits. Because substantial evidence supports the unemployment-law judge’s conclusion that Paulson committed employment misconduct.  The misconduct in this case consisted of providing falsified "cycle reports" to the employer and causing the employer financial loss for her personal gain.  As a result, the Appeals Court affirmed the determination of ineligibility.

If you are denied unemployment benefits, or are an employer who wants to challenge a former employee's eligibility for benefits, your best bet is to meet with an attorney who handles unemployment appeals to discuss your options.  To that end, I represent both applicants and employers in unemployment appeals.  Please call (763) 450-9494 today to set up an appointment to discuss your situation.

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 decisions -- actually, one decision and two orders -- issued by the Minnesota Supreme Court today, Wednesday 10/8/14.  The decision, involving the appeal of a admonition, reversed the discipline and vacated the admonition.  The orders involved a petition for reinstatement and a stipulated public reprimand.

A13-1856, In re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against A.B., a Minnesota Attorney, Panel Case No. 35121.

Summary:  The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility issued an admonition to A.B. based on his failure to appear at several court hearings in a marital-dissolution case and becauuse he did not inform the district court that he had a limited-scope agreement with his client that excluded court hearings. A panel of the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board affirmed the admonition, concluding that A.B.’s conduct violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(d).

Because the panel’s decision was clearly erroneous, Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the Board’s decision and vacated the admonition.  However, in a footnote, the Court cautioned that vacating an admonition did not mean that "an attorney’s failure to attend a court hearing can never result in discipline," and cited an array of cases as proof.

A13-1548, In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Willie Herman Davis, Jr., a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 298384.

Summary: By order filed on May 8, 2014, the Minnesota Supreme Court suspended respondent Willie Herman Davis, Jr., from the practice of law for a minimum of 120 days, effective 14 days from the date of the filing of the order. Respondent has filed an affidavit seeking reinstatement in which he states that he has complied with the conditions for reinstatement imposed by the court. Respondent's affidavit does not state that respondent has successfully completed the professional responsibility portion of the state bar examination, nor has respondent filed with the Clerk of Appellate Courts proof that he has successfully completed the professional responsibility portion of the state bar examination. The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility does not oppose the request

For all of these reasons, the Court conditionally reinstated respondent's license to practice law.  The conditions include being on disciplinary probation for 7 years and completing the professional responsibility portion of the bar examination.

A14-1551, In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Timothy Joseph Klima, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 202885.

Summary: The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility has filed a petition for disciplinary action seeking reciprocal discipline under Rule 12(d), Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR), based on a decision of the Iowa Supreme Court publicly reprimanding respondent Timothy Joseph Klima. See Iowa Supreme 
Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Klima, No. 13-1815, Order (Iowa filed Jan. 3, 2014). The Iowa public reprimand was based on respondent assisting another lawyer in his firm in violating the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct by helping him draft a will in which respondent received a substantial gift and failing to explain to the client the conflict 
inherent in including such a gift in a will drafted by a member of respondent's firm, the implications of the gift, and the need for independent counsel, in violation of Rules 32:1.4(a)(2) and (b) and 32:8.4(a) of the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct. The Director and respondent have entered into a stipulation in which respondent 
admits the allegations in the petition for disciplinary action and waives his rights under Rule 12(d), RLPR. The parties jointly recommend that the appropriate discipline is a public reprimand, so the Minnesota Supreme Court publicly reprimanded Respondent.

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.