A new Guess Who will be coming next issue!
LAWYER DISCIPLINE
Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of North Dakota, Petitioner, v. Nicole E. Foster, Respondent No. 20170150-20170151
A hearing panel of the Disciplinary Board recommended Nicole E. Foster be disbarred from the practice of law in North Dakota. The two matters involved in this disciplinary action arise out of the same circumstances as Supreme Court Nos. 20160403-20160434, in which Foster was disbarred on May 1.
Foster failed to be diligent in handling her clients’ cases; failed to make reasonable efforts to keep the clients reasonably informed about their respective matters and failed to adequately communicate with them; collected unreasonable fees compared to the amount of work done for the clients; and did not return a client file or unearned fees after she abandoned her representation of him.
After considering the aggravating and mitigating factors, the hearing panel concluded disbarment was the appropriate sanction. The Supreme Court adopted the hearing panel’ s conclusion that Foster violated N. D. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, and 1.16 in these matters. The Court ordered that Foster be disbarred from the practice of law, that she pay $ 250 in costs of the disciplinary proceedings, that she pay restitution to the client protection fund, and that she pay $ 2,500 restitution to one client.
Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota, Petitioner, v. Jesse D. Matson, Respondent No. 20170101-20170121
The Supreme Court considered the report of a hearing panel of the Disciplinary Board recommending that Jesse D. Matson be disbarred from the practice of law in North Dakota; that he pay the costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceeding; and that he reimburse clients for violation of N. D. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.16, 3.2, 3.3, 8.4, and N. D. R. Lawyer Discipline 6.3.
Matson was admitted to practice law in North Dakota on October 10, 2011. On September 15, 2015, Matson was placed on interim suspension. See Disciplinary Board v. Matson, 2015 ND 222, 869 N. W. 2d 128. This matter involves 21 consolidated disciplinary actions in which Matson represented clients in civil and criminal matters. Matson collected advance fees from clients, did not deposit the fees in an identifiable interest bearing trust account, and did not maintain records regarding fees and work performed. He failed to perform the work to justify the fees or return unearned funds to clients failed to perform the work to justify the fees collected, and failed to return any unearned funds to clients. Matson misappropriated and converted client funds and property.
While practicing law, Matson submitted incomplete and poor quality paperwork; failed to understand the requirements of hearings; failed to be aware of pertinent statutes of limitations for claims; failed to submit responses or objections to filed documents or requests by opposing counsel and submitted untimely responses; failed to review documents provided by opposing parties; failed to appear at hearings; failed to monitor the status of proceedings; failed to forward pertinent settlement documents; failed to prepare for hearings; failed to return communications from clients; failed to provide updates on the status of ongoing matters; failed to communicate and discuss the substance of settlement offers; failed to expedite litigation; and failed to provide requested information to clients. With regard to the matter involving an opposing party, Matson filed numerous documents serving no legitimate purpose, causing the attorney’ s fees of the opposing party to needlessly increase.
Matson materially misrepresented facts when he told multiple clients he would or had completed work on their matters, but work had not been started or had not been completed. Matson also misrepresented facts when communicating with clients, courts, and opposing counsel.
Matson had no contact with clients after September 15, 2015. Matson abandoned his practice without good cause or notice to clients. He terminated representation of clients without being otherwise discharged from representation, and he did not return clients’ files.
Matson failed to notify clients of his interim suspension from the practice of law as required by this Court’ s order in Matson, 2015 ND 222, 869 N. W. 2d 128 and N. D. Discipl. R. 6.3. He failed to pay the costs and expenses ordered in Matson.
The Supreme Court accepted the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations of the hearing panel and ordered Matson disbarred from the practice of law in North Dakota effective immediately. It ordered Matson to pay the costs and expenses in the amount of $ 250; pay restitution to complaining clients as outlined in the opinion within 90 days of entry of the judgment; and pay restitution to the North Dakota Client Protection Fund for any amounts paid now or in the future on his behalf within 90 days of entry of the judgment.
A new Guess Who will be coming next issue!
Congratulations to Robert G. Manly, who was drawn as the winner from the correct guesses for Guess Who in the Spring 2017 issue.
Last issue’ s answers:( L to R) Bernie Reynolds, Wade Webb, Dan Dunn, Kim Brust, and Todd Webb.
If you have any pictures you would like to see featured in Guess Who, send them to tony @ sband. org.
42 THE GAVEL