and did not return the retainer to the clients . The hearing panel concluded Pilch ’ s conduct in the first matter violated N . D . R . Prof . Conduct 1.3 , Diligence , by failing to complete the letter requested by the clients which was the objective of the representation ; and 1.4 , Communication , by failing to keep the clients informed as to his progress with the letter the clients were unable to make informed decisions . The clients did not suffer an injury , but the potential for injury existed .
In the second matter , Pilch was retained for $ 1,250 to assist a client with the sale of his home . Pilch drafted the purchase agreement and was initially somewhat communicative . Starting approximately one month before the closing , the client was unable to reach Pilch . The client contacted the title company , which was also unable to reach Pilch . Pilch did not attend the closing . The hearing panel concluded Pilch ’ s conduct in the second matter violated N . D . R . Prof . Conduct 1.16 , Declining or Terminating Representation , by failing to take reasonably practicable steps to protect the client ’ s interests , specifically , but not limited to the providing of notice of discontinuation of services and provision of a refund of unearned monies .
The Supreme Court disbarred Pilch from the practice of law , effective immediately ; ordered him to pay restitution of $ 1,250 to the client in the second matter , pay costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceedings , and repay the client protection fund for any amounts paid on Pilch ’ s behalf .
NOTICE OF ORDER ON ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of North Dakota , Petitioner v . Garrett Slyva , Respondent No . 20230232
The North Dakota Supreme Court considered the report of a hearing panel of the Disciplinary Board recommending Garrett Slyva be reprimanded .
The hearing panel found Slyva worked for the Fargo Public Defender ’ s office from January 2021 to February 2022 . Approximately two months before the conduct in this matter , Slyva put his arm around a client at the jail . At the hearing , Slyva admitted his action was a foolish decision and that his conduct was inappropriate . Slyva ’ s supervisor testified jail officials investigated this interaction and determined no crime had taken place . His supervisor also testified , as a result of this incident , the Public Defender ’ s office prohibited Slyva from having that type of face-to-face in-person meeting with any clients . He was permitted to have in-person meetings with a glass partition between him and the client .
Despite this restriction , Slyva had the same type of face-to-face in-person visit with the client in this matter and other clients on February 9 , 2022 at the Cass County jail . The client was uncomfortable because of Sylva ’ s questions about her relationship status and because he asked her on a date . He told the client their conversation should “ stay here , because I have control of your next court date .” Slyva denied asking her on a date and claimed she misunderstood him .
Because the client was uncomfortable with Slyva , she asked the corrections deputies to listen to her phone calls with Slyva . She also filed a statement about the incident with the jail . Jail officials investigated the interaction and determined no crime had taken place . Slyva ’ s supervisor at the Public Defender office testified the physical contact with a female client was inappropriate and alarming , because it was a female client who was incarcerated , and therefore , vulnerable . The Public Defender ’ s office terminated Slyva shortly after it learned of this incident . Based on the testimony , the hearing panel concluded the client ’ s testimony regarding the visit and the questions asked during the visit was credible .
At the client ’ s next hearing , she was released from jail . Therefore , the hearing panel concluded the client did not suffer a substantial or otherwise serious injury as a result of Slyva ’ s conduct . The hearing panel concluded Slyva ’ s conduct violated N . D . R . Prof . Conduct 1.7 ( a ), Conflict of Interest : General Rule , by putting his personal interests in a romantic relationship over the client ’ s interest in resolving the criminal matter . After considering the aggravating and mitigating factors , the hearing panel recommended Slyva be reprimanded by the Supreme Court .
The Supreme Court accepted the hearing panel ’ s report and reprimanded Slyva . The Court ordered Slyva to pay the costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceeding .
NOTICE OF ORDER DISBARRING ATTORNEY Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of North Dakota , Petitioner v . Kristin A . Overboe , Respondent No . 20230090
The North Dakota Supreme Court considered the report of a hearing panel of the Disciplinary Board recommending Kristin A . Overboe be suspended from the practice of law in North Dakota .
Overboe failed to answer the complaint and was in default . The hearing panel found Overboe was retained in January 2021 to represent a client in a divorce matter . Overboe failed to properly communicate with the client . Overboe failed to serve completed discovery answers on the opposing party , which led to a prohibition on introducing certain evidence and testimony at trial . She was not prepared for trial and the client ’ s position was damaged . The trial judge negatively critiqued Overboe . She failed to provide the client with a copy of the decision following trial . In June of 2022 , Overboe notified the client she was withdrawing as her counsel and would not be filing an appeal . She did not withdraw , and without client authorization , on July 22 , 2022 , filed a notice of appeal on the client ’ s behalf . The client then terminated Overboe . Despite requests from the client , Overboe failed to return the client ’ s documents . After considering aggravating and mitigating factors , the hearing panel recommended the sanction of suspension for six months and one day , effective immediately .
The Supreme Court accepted the hearing panel ’ s report and ordered Overboe suspended from the practice of law in North Dakota six months and one day , effective immediately . The Court ordered Overboe to pay the costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceed , pay restitution to the client protection fund , and comply with N . D . R . Lawyer Discipl . 6.3 regarding notice .
FALL 2023 33