2017 JUDGMENT INTEREST RATE
LAWYER DISCIPLINE
Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court, Petitioner, v. Julie L. Bruggeman, Respondent No. 20160337
The Supreme Court considered a stipulation, consent to discipline, and recommendations by a hearing panel of the Disciplinary Board, in which Bruggeman consented to a reprimand by the Supreme Court for violation of N. D. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3, 1.4, and 1.16.
On Nov. 22, 2013, Bruggeman was retained to represent a client. From December 2014 to June 2015, Bruggeman had minimal communication with the client, and she did not notify the client of a scheduling order setting trial for Sept. 29, 2015. In June 2015, another attorney hired by the client contacted Bruggeman about her representation, and on July 7, 2015, Bruggeman provided her file to the other attorney. Bruggeman closed her file on July 7, 2015, without direction from the client. She had no further contact with the client, took no actions on the client’ s behalf, did not prepare or forward a substitution of counsel for the other attorney, and did not notify the client to inform him of her termination of representation.
On Sept. 15, 2015, the court contacted Bruggeman to discuss the trial. The next day, Bruggeman moved to withdraw as counsel, but she did not serve the client with the motion. The court did not rule on the motion because there was no evidence it was served on the client. On Sept. 28, 2015, the court informed Bruggeman she was counsel of record, and she was to be present with the client at trial the next day.
Bruggeman did not attend the trial. On Sept. 29, 2015, the client was informed by a third party that his trial was occurring. The client had to hire emergency counsel for the trial. The client was unsuccessful and was ordered to pay the opposing party. The court found Bruggeman in contempt of court in November 2015 and ordered her to pay the client $ 3,419 to purge the contempt. She is making payments and is compliant with the order.
The Supreme Court reprimanded Bruggeman and ordered her to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding in the amount of $ 250. Effective upon entry of the judgment, Bruggeman is on probation until her contempt of court in Burleigh County case 08-2014-CV- 00639 is purged, according to the terms in the contempt order. Bruggeman will submit an affidavit, with supporting documentation, to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel showing such terms have been met and purge has occurred.
N. D. R. Lawyer Disc Rule 6.2. B.( 2)
In accordance with N. D. R. Lawyer Disc Rule 6.2. B.( 2), the disciplinary authority that issues an admonition or imposes probation which does not limit the lawyer’ s license to practice law against a respondent who, where permissible, does not timely request a review of the discipline imposed under these rules, shall prepare a written summary of the misconduct that resulted in the discipline, including a reference to the disciplinary rule or statute violated and cause the summary to be published in the association publication.
• An attorney was admonished for a violation of Rule 4.4 of the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct. The attorney improperly used his status as an attorney to attempt to gain personal information from a third party, while representing clients.
• An attorney was admonished for a violation of Rules 5.5, 7.1, and 7.5 of the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct. The attorney issued a misleading solicitation letter to a potential client. The letter’ s format failed to communicate the attorney’ s limited ability to provide legal services in North Dakota at the time the letter was sent.
• An attorney was admonished for a violation of Rule 5.5 of the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct. The attorney held out, through firm letterhead and online publications, that the lawyer was licensed to provide legal services in North Dakota when the lawyer was not so licensed.
• An attorney was admonished for a violation of Rules 5.5 and 7.1 of the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct. The attorney maintained a website which was misleading with regard to the attorney’ s North Dakota licensure status. Additionally, the attorney had a continuous presence in North Dakota by maintaining an office here, prior to attaining North Dakota licensure.
2017 JUDGMENT INTEREST RATE
The North Dakota State Court Administrator has set the judgment interest rate for 2017 at 6.50 percent. The administrator is required by law to annually determine the judgment interest rate prior to Dec. 20.
The rate will be applied to all judgments entered in 2017. The judgment interest rate is calculated by using the prime rate as reported on the first Monday in December, plus three percentage points. The result must be rounded up to the next one-half percentage point.
34 THE GAVEL