LAWYER DISCIPLINE
A lawyer was admonished as reciprocal discipline pursuant to Rule 4.4 , N . D . R . Lawyer Discipl ., for discipline imposed by the Director of the Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility for the lawyer ' s violation of Rule l . 7 ( a )( 2 ) of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct due to a conflict created through a debtor / creditor relationship when litigation was undertaken in an attorney / client relationship without informed consent and a written waiver of the potential conflict of interest . Reciprocal discipline in North Dakota was merited .
A lawyer was admonished for violating Rule 1.4 and 8.1 of the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct . It was found by clear and convincing evidence the lawyer failed to properly communicate with the lawyer ’ s client , in violation of Rule 1.4 regarding communication , and the lawyer also failed to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation by failing to provide requested materials , in violation of Rule 8.1 , regarding disciplinary investigations .
A lawyer was admonished for a clear and convincing violation of Rule 1.3 of the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct . The lawyer failed to attend an initial appearance without sufficient justification as to why , which demonstrated a lack of diligent representation of his client .
A lawyer was admonished for violating Rule 1.1 , Competence ; Rule 3.1 , Meritorious Claims and Contentions ; Rule 3.5 , Impartiality and Decorum of the Tribunal ; and Rule 5.3 , Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants , of the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct . Clear and convincing evidence was present the lawyer engaged in ex parte communication due to lack of proper staff oversight in violation of Rules 3.5 and 5.3 , when a staff member sent an email to the judge without including opposing counsel about the travel plans of a minor , and the lawyer failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate and acknowledge the error . Clear and convincing evidence was also present the lawyer lacked competence because the lawyer allowed an email to be sent to the judge making the request , rather than making the required formal motion requested by the court , when it was known there was a competing request by the opposing party for travel with the minor at the same time . Lastly , clear and convincing evidence was found the lawyer violated Rule 3.1 because the lawyer made frivolous statements about a potential motion to dismiss , which would have been procedurally inappropriate and an over simplification of the handling of the case without the involvement of social services . Considering the totality of the circumstances and the applicable Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions , it was determined an admonition was merited .
38 THE GAVEL