LAWYER DISCIPLINE
Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court
of the State of North Dakota, Petitioner,
v. Michael L. Nobis, Respondent
No. 6414-NE-1905
A hearing panel of the disciplinary board, disciplinary counsel, and
Michael L. Nobis agreed that he be reprimanded. Nobis held himself
out to the public as a lawyer licensed to practice in Utah when he
was not. Nobis acknowledged his conduct violated the Utah Rules of
Professional Conduct, which apply because the predominant effect of
his conduct occurred in Utah. The hearing panel, disciplinary counsel,
and Nobis agreed he be reprimanded for his misconduct and pay
$250 in costs and expenses of the proceeding.
Discipline Summaries
A lawyer was admonished and required to participate in the Lawyer
Assistance Program for violation of Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.15(a), and
1.16(e) of the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct. The
lawyer represented clients in tribal court actions related to a civil
suit, which included federal district court and appellate work. The
lawyer failed to diligently pursue the clients’ matters by ceasing work
on them after the appeals had been completed, but did not follow
up and prepare for further representation as was anticipated by the
clients. The lawyer also failed to instruct the clients that the lawyer had
ceased any further work and failed to have adequate communication
with the clients, despite the clients’ numerous attempts to get status
updates and get billing information. Additionally, the lawyer failed
to maintain proper accounting records establishing that all of the
clients’ funds were adequately protected, despite his factual recitation
demonstrating the funds had been earned. The lawyer was required
to provide an accounting record demonstrating how all of the funds
paid in by the client were earned. The lawyer did not take the proper
steps to end the relationship and protect the clients’ interests when
the lawyer decided to terminate the representation. Several personal
and work-related issues were considered to be mitigating factors, but
indicated the attorney would also benefit from participation with the
Lawyer Assistance Program.
A lawyer was admonished for violating Rule 3.3(a)(1) of the North
Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct by knowingly filing with
the district court a document that indicated a stipulation had been
reached regarding property division in a divorce, when there was not
an agreed up stipulation. The lawyer was aware that opposing counsel
had specifically indicated a lack of agreement regarding changes made
to the draft document by the lawyer. The lawyer was attempting to
comply with a court order, but the conduct was found to be an isolated
instance of neglect in determining how to comply with it.
34 THE GAVEL