LAWYER DISCIPLINE
NOTICE OF ORDER REPRIMANDING ATTORNEY
Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of North
Dakota Petitioner v. Cindy L. Turcotte, Respondent
No. 20190042
In findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations,
and after considering the aggravating factors under the
N.D. Stds. Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, a hearing panel of
the Disciplinary Board recommended Cindy L. Turcotte be
reprimanded by the Supreme Court and pay the costs and
expense of the disciplinary proceeding. The Supreme Court
accepted the recommendation.
Turcotte maintained a civil and criminal law practice in
Williston. On November 28, 2017, Turcotte notified the Clerk
of the Supreme Court, the Northwest District Judges, and
other court staff by email that she was taking a medical leave
of absence from the practice of law from November 20, 2017,
until February 28, 2018. Turcotte did not provide information or
background to those she contacted to assist with the handling
of her cases. She made little to no effort within her clients’
cases to ensure they were adequately represented during her
absence. Turcotte represented a client in Williams County and,
in December 2017, instructed her client to obtain discovery
from the Williams County State’s Attorney for the client’s case
and for multiple other clients’ cases. Turcotte made no effort to
ensure her other clients’ confidential information relating to her
representation was preserved. The hearing panel found Turcotte’s
actions with regard to taking a leave of absence and with regard
to obtaining discovery demonstrated a lack of competence.
Turcotte failed to pay her 2018 license fee until January 17,
2018. During January 1, 2018, through January 17, 2018,
Turcotte represented clients in legal matters, which the hearing
panel found was the unauthorized practice of law.
The hearing panel concluded Turcotte violated N.D.R. Prof.
Conduct 1.1, Competence; 1.3 and 5.5, Unauthorized Practice
of Law.
The Supreme Court reprimanded Turcotte and ordered her to
pay the costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceeding in the
amount of $250.
Discipline Summaries
• A lawyer was admonished for violations of Rules 1.3 and
1.16(e) of the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct.
Clear and convincing evidence was present that the lawyer
lacked diligence in representing the client in failing to file
responsive documents within the timeframe that would
have prevented a default judgment from being imposed.
Clear and convincing evidence was also present that the
lawyer did not take proper steps to withdraw from the
representation or inform the clients that the lawyer was no
longer continuing to work on the case. Clear and convincing
evidence was present that no accountings were returned to
the clients.
• A lawyer was admonished for violations of Rule 1.1
and 1.4(b) of the North Dakota Rules of Professional
Conduct. Clear and convincing evidence was present that
the lawyer lacked competence by demonstrating a lack of
understanding relevant legal principles and doctrines related
to the representation. Clear and convincing evidence also
was present showing that the lawyer did not communicate
sufficiently with the client so as to allow the client to
understand the issues within the litigation and make
informed decisions.
Missing
GUESS WHO?
Guess Who will return, but we
NEED your photos. If you have any
Guess Who photos, please submit
them to [email protected].
Last issue’s answers:
1st row: Paul Johnsin, Tim Ottmar, Tim
Price, Steve Richards, and Dan Hovland
2nd row: Terry Wiles, Terry Lorrenz,
Mark Beauchene, and Mike Williams
Congratulations to winner,
Scott Richard Sandness.
38
THE GAVEL