CONCLUSION This opinion was drafted by Jackie M . Stebbins and was unanimously approved by the Ethics Committee on the 13th day of March 2018 .
This opinion is provided under Rule 1.2 ( B ), North Dakota Rules states :
LAWYER DISCIPLINE
In the Matter of the Application for Reinstatement of Richard D . Varriano , a Person Admitted to the Bar of the State of North Dakota Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court , Petitioner v . Richard D . Varriano , Respondent No . 20150342
The Disciplinary Board recommended Richard Varriano ’ s conditional reinstatement to practice law be revoked and he be required to petition for reinstatement for violating two of the conditions of his reinstatement . In 2015 , Varriano petitioned for reinstatement after being suspended from the practice of law in 2010 . The Supreme Court granted the petition subject to various conditions , including that he maintain his sobriety and work with the Lawyer Assistance Program to set up an individual assistance plan .
A lawyer who acts with good faith and reasonable reliance on a written opinion or advisory letter of the ethics committee of the association is not subject to sanction for violation of the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct as to the conduct that is the subject of the opinion or advisory letter .
On December 30 , 2016 , Varriano consumed alcohol and he was terminated from the Lawyer Assistance Program . The Supreme Court found clear and convincing evidence that Varriano violated the two conditions of his reinstatement . The Court continued Varriano ’ s reinstatement and modified the conditions to include that he attend counseling sessions at least monthly with a licensed addiction counselor . The Court also ordered that he pay $ 1,000 of the $ 2,251.14 costs of the proceedings .
Discipline Summaries
A lawyer was admonished for a violation of Rule 3.3 , N . D . R . Prof . Conduct . The lawyer filed a motion for a continuance of a case , which included a representation that the attorney was not able to attend due to a conflict with a jury trial . At the time the motion was served , the lawyer had already been granted a continuance in that jury trial , thus making the representation within the motion false . As a result , it was found the lawyer lacked candor to the district court .
36 THE GAVEL