LAWYER DISCIPLINE
Discipline Summaries
NOTICE OF DISCIPLINE OF ATTORNEY
In the Matter of Reciprocal Discipline of Michael R . Ruffenach , a Person Previously Admitted to the Bar of the State of North Dakota
No . 20210240
The Minnesota Supreme Court filed an order suspending Michael R . Ruffenach for failing to diligently represent and communicate with a client , failing to safeguard client funds , failing to timely refund fees to a client and failing to take prompt action to resolve a fee dispute , failing to comply with trust account requirements , inappropriately characterizing a fee as a " minimum fee " not subject to refund and earned upon payment , misappropriation of client funds , and failing to timely and fully cooperate with the director ' s investigations of his misconduct . Ruffenach is not currently licensed in North Dakota . He was notified a certified copy of an order was received and he had 30 days to file any claim that imposition of the identical discipline in North Dakota would be unwarranted and the reasons for the claim . Ruffenach filed an affidavit in which he consented to a suspension to coincide with the Minnesota suspension order . The North Dakota Supreme Court suspended Ruffenach for 12 months , effective upon entry of judgment . Reinstatement is conditioned upon on successful completion of the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination and compliance with continuing legal education requirements .
A lawyer received an admonition for violating Rules 1.1 , 1.3 , 1.4 ( a ), and 3.4 ( c ) of the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct . Clear and convincing evidence was found the lawyer did not provide competent representation to the clients based on a lack of thoroughness and preparation necessary for trial . Clear and convincing evidence was also found the lawyer lacked diligence in failing to follow up on ensuring a client ' s background check was submitted to the court and the lawyer knowingly failed to comply with the court ' s scheduling order regarding making timely witness and exhibit disclosures . Based off these shortcomings by the lawyer , the clients were barred from presenting their case . Clear and convincing evidence was further established there was a lack of communication with the clients regarding what was going to occur at trial when the lawyer had advised the clients he did not believe they would be successful . In addition to the admonition , the lawyer was referred to the Lawyer ' s Assistance Program for a 12-month mentorship regarding communications with clients and the court , compliance with judicial orders , presentation of oneself to opposing counsel and the court , and decorum and professionalism in the profession .
A lawyer received an admonition for violating Rule 1.16 of the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct , by failing to file a Notice of Appeal on behalf of a client after a Motion to Reconsider was denied . Clear and convincing evidence was found the lawyer was aware the client wanted to appeal any adverse decision but failed to protect the client ' s interests and to follow the policies of the indigent defense commission after not being able to get in touch with his client . Clear and convincing evidence was found the lawyer needed to take steps to protect the client ' s interests , even if the lawyer was not assigned to handle the appeal .
36 THE GAVEL