The State Bar Association of North Dakota Summer 2015 Gavel Magazine | Page 31

LAWYER DISCIPLINE
NOTICE OF REINSTATEMENT AND
DISCIPLINE OF ATTORNEY
Disciplinary Board of the Supreme
Court of the State of North Dakota, v.
Henry H. Howe, Petitioner
No. 20150156

Henry H. Howe filed a Petition for
Reinstatement with the Disciplinary Board
of the Supreme Court. Howe was suspended
from the practice of law for a period of
six months and one day starting April 10,
2014, due to misconduct. The reinstatement
matter was assigned to a hearing panel of
the Disciplinary Board, and it filed its report
with the Supreme Court. After evaluating
the factors for reinstatement under N.D.R.
Lawyer Discipl. 4.5, the hearing panel
recommended that Howe be reinstated
subject to conditions and that Howe be
allowed to apply to the Disciplinary Board
to lift the conditions of reinstatement
when evidence demonstrates they are no
longer needed. During a separate interim
suspension, Howe posted a statement
on his office door and stated in letters to
clients he was interim suspended by the
Supreme Court and charged with a crime
as a result of a “witch hunt” by the Drug
Task Force, State’s Attorney and district
court judge. The hearing panel concluded
this conduct violated N.D.R.Prof. Conduct
8.2(a), Judicial and Legal Officials, which
provides that a lawyer shall not knowingly,
or with reckless disregard as to its truth or
falsity, make a false statement concerning
the qualifications or integrity of a judge, and
concluded a reprimand was appropriate.

The Supreme Court ordered that Howe be
reinstated to the practice of law in the State
of North Dakota and that he is eligible to
obtain a license, effective immediately. It
ordered the following conditions on Howe’s
reinstatement: 1) Howe submit to an
evaluation and an Individualized Assessment
Plan as deemed reasonable under the Lawyer
Assistance Program under N.D.R.Lawyer
Discipl. 6.6.; 2) Howe continue to make
payments in the amount of $325 per
month to satisfy the judgment for costs and
expenses of prior proceedings; 3) Howe
limit his practice so that he does not advise
or represent clients in connection with any
immigration matters; 4) Howe enroll in a law
practice management program to enable him
to develop sufficient office practices to avoid
further acts of misconduct; 5) Disciplinary
Counsel assign a monitor to work with
Howe to assure compliance with specific law
office management systems and procedures;
6) Howe and the monitor attest to his
compliance with conditions of reinstatement
by filing affidavits with Disciplinary
Counsel as conditions are fulfilled; and 7)
if Disciplinary Counsel determines Howe
has failed to comply with the conditions of
reinstatement, and there exists a potential
for harm to the public, Disciplinary Counsel
shall notify the Court and, where necessary
to protect the public, the Court may subject
Howe to immediate interim suspension
under N.D.R. Lawyer Discipl. 3.4.
The Supreme Court also ordered Howe
to pay the costs and expenses of the
reinstatement proceeding in the amount
of $5,274.90 and reprimanded Howe for
violation of N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 8.2(a).

M e d i at i o n

by

NOTICE OF DISCIPLINE OF
ATTORNEY

Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court
of the State of North Dakota, Petitioner v.
Tom P. Slorby, Respondent
File Noa. 5584-W-1308, 5594-W-1309

After Tom P. Slorby self-reported possible
misconduct, a