LAWYER DISCIPLINE
Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota, Petitioner v. Allan R. Popper, Respondent No. 20180113
The Supreme Court considered the stipulated findings, conclusions, consent to discipline, and recommendations of the hearing panel of the Disciplinary Board recommending that Allan R. Popper be disciplined for violation of N. D. R. Prof. Conduct 5.5( a) and 7.1( a).
Popper is an employee of Lienguard, Inc. Lienguard, Inc., was hired by L S Drywall, Inc., to place a construction lien on property located in North Dakota. Popper researched the property recordings and researched North Dakota statutes. He mailed a Preliminary Notice of Furnishing for Private Work and a Notice of Intent to Claim a Construction Lien to the current owners of the property, and he demanded payment of $ 3,515. He drafted and signed a verification acknowledging the information contained within the notice was true to the best of his knowledge and belief. Popper did not associate with an attorney licensed to practice law in North Dakota. He did not indicate in the drafted legal documents that he was not licensed in North Dakota or that he was an attorney.
Popper admitted he violated N. D. R. Prof. Conduct 5.5( a) regarding the unauthorized practice of law and 7.1( a) regarding communications concerning the services of a lawyer. He agreed a reprimand was the appropriate sanction.
The Supreme Court reprimanded Popper, ordered he cease and desist engaging in any further unauthorized practice of law or submissions of misleading communications in North Dakota, ordered he is prohibited from seeking licensure or pro hac vice admission for two years, and ordered he pay the costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceedings in the amount of $ 380.
Discipline Summaries
• A lawyer was admonished for a violation of Rule 4.2, N. D. R. Prof. Conduct. During the course of representing a client, the lawyer sent a letter directly to the opposing party when the opposing party was represented by counsel and the lawyer had reason to know about that representation. The letter was not sent to opposing counsel, but communicated about the subject matter of the representation. The lawyer did not have permission to speak directly to the party.
• A lawyer was admonished for a violation of Rule 1.3, N. D. R. Prof. Conduct. The lawyer represented an individual in a child custody matter and had the individual do a substantial amount of work in her own case that should have been done by the lawyer. Additionally, the lawyer drew the matter out for a longer period of time than was necessary.
42 THE GAVEL