LAWYER DISCIPLINE
A lawyer received reciprocal discipline from Minnesota for violations of Rules 1.1 , 3.4 ( e ), 4.4 ( a ), and 8.4 ( d ). Reciprocal discipline was found by the North Dakota Supreme Court to be merited and to be imposed by the Inquiry Committee Northeast . Reciprocal discipline in the form of an admonition was imposed against the lawyer .
A lawyer was admonished under Rule 4.2 , N . D . R . of Prof . Conduct , regarding Communication with a Person Represented by Counsel . Within an email , the lawyer replied to all with a communication that had been sent by opposing counsel ; however , rather than responding only to opposing counsel , the lawyer made direct comments to the opposing party . It was found the communication was inappropriate and had the potential to intimidate the opposing party or undermine the attorney-client relationship . In addition to the admonition , the lawyer was required to complete three hours of CLE on communication in legal practice with an emphasis on communications with an opposing party and counsel .
A lawyer was given an admonition for violating Rule 1.15 ( a ), N . D . R . of Prof . Conduct , regarding an overdraft which was caused by the lawyer ’ s mishandling of client funds . The lawyer deposited a flat fee from a client into his IOLTA account and then immediately swept the funds into his operating account . The client ’ s check bounced , which resulted in the lawyers ’ IOLTA account going to a negative balance . The lawyer was encouraged to allow additional time to ensure checks clear before moving funds from the IOLTA account into an operating account . The lawyer had been offered a lower level of discipline , but failed to comply with the terms that had been agreed to , so an admonition was imposed .
A lawyer was admonished for violating Rule 3.1 of the N . D . R . of Prof . Conduct . It was found by clear and convincing evidence by reopening a closed matter and pursuing an appeal within that matter , the lawyer engaged in the filing and maintenance of a nonmeritorious and frivolous claim .
A lawyer was admonished for violating Rule 1.4 of the N . D . R of Prof . Conduct . It was found by clear and convincing evidence that the lawyer failed to properly communicate with the client and in doing so left the client uninformed as to the status of the case , specifically as to the status of a settlement payment due to the client .
A lawyer was admonished for violating Rules 1.1 and 1.3 of the N . D . R . of Prof . Conduct . It was found by clear and convincing evidence that the lawyer failed to respond to discovery requests sent by opposing counsel within the representation . The lawyer was also found to have failed to employ methods of competent practitioners with regard to office and information management and exhibited an overall lack of diligence in attending to the representation . The attorney was also required to issue a refund of the remaining retainer .
38 THE GAVEL