communicate it has been recognized or certified as a specialist in a field , except as provided for under Rule 7.4 , N . D . R . Prof . Conduct . See ABA / BNA Lawyers ' Manual on Professional Conduct 81:206 ( 2017 ) (" Firms that employ trade names to describe their practice must avoid any false implications about the nature of their practice or affiliations .") Under the facts presented , it is permissible for the Attorney to include a reference to the Attorney ' s area of practice within its trade name ( e . g . " ABC DUI "), as long as the reference to the practice area does not violate Rule 7.4 , nor misleads as to the Attorney ' s areas of practice .
Rule 7.2 subjects advertising to the requirements of Rules 7.1 and 7.3 , and the Attorney ' s advertisement must also adhere to the requirements of these rules . N . D . R . Prof . Conduct .
LAWYER DISCIPLINE
Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota , Petitioner v . Jesse D . Matson , Respondent , No . 20170343-20170344
The Supreme Court considered the report of a hearing panel of the Disciplinary Board recommending Jesse D . Matson be disbarred from the practice of law in North Dakota ; he pay the costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceeding ; and he reimburse clients and the North Dakota Client Protection Fund for violation of N . D . R . Prof . Conduct 1.3 , 1.4 , and 1.16 .
Matson was admitted to practice law in North Dakota on Oct . 10 , 2011 . Matson was previously disbarred . In both the matters considered , Matson represented clients in family law matters .
In the first matter , the client paid Matson $ 4,000 to represent him in 2014 . Matson failed to communicate with the client . He failed to perform the agreed upon services , abandoned the client without notice , and failed to return any unearned funds or the client ’ s file . In the second matter , the client paid Matson $ 3,000 . Matson communicated on and off with the client . He later requested an additional $ 1,000 to complete the representation . After that payment was made , Matson failed to communicate with the client . He failed to perform the agreed upon services , abandoned the client without notice , and failed to return any unearned funds . Matson told the client a number of times documents were filed , which was untrue .
The Supreme Court accepted the report of the hearing panel and ordered Matson disbarred from the practice of law in North Dakota effective immediately . It ordered Matson pay the costs and expenses in the amount of $ 250 ; pay restitution to complaining clients as outlined in the opinion within 90 days of entry of the judgment ; and pay restitution to the North Dakota Client Protection Fund for any amounts paid now or in the future on his behalf within 90 days of entry of the judgment .
CONCLUSION This opinion was drafted by Casey A . Furey and was unanimously approved by the Ethics Committee on the 7th day of September , 2017 .
This opinion is provided under Rule l . 2 ( B ), North Dakota Rules for Lawyer Discipline , which states :
A lawyer who acts with good faith and reasonable reliance on a written opinion or advisory letter of the ethics committee of the association is not subject to sanction for violation of the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct as to the conduct that is the subject of the opinion or advisory letter .
1 . The State Bar Association of North Dakota Ethics Committee can only issue opinions that are jurisdictional to and governed by the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct . Therefore , the Ethics Committee cannot issue an opinion on the use of trade names in advertising within the state of Minnesota .
In the Matter of Reciprocal Discipline of Travis W . Huisman , a Person Previously Admitted to the Bar of the State of North Dakota , No . 20170369
A Trial Panel of the Supreme Court of Oregon filed an order suspending Travis W . Huisman for client neglect , failure to communicate , trust account violations , improper termination of representation , and noncooperation with a disciplinary proceeding . Huisman is not currently licensed in North Dakota .
Huisman was notified a certified copy of an order was received and he had 30 days to file any claim that imposition of the identical discipline in North Dakota would be unwarranted and the reasons for the claim . No response was received . The North Dakota Supreme Court is suspending Travis W . Huisman for 18 months , effective when and if he is relicensed to practice law in North Dakota .
Discipline Summaries
An attorney was admonished for a violation of Rule 3.4 ( c ) of the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct . The attorney ’ s conduct was found to be unfair to opposing counsel when the attorney disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a tribunal . The attorney improperly disseminated sensitive information in a criminal matter that was protected under Rule 32 ( c )( 4 ) of the North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure . Due to the improper dissemination , the information came into the possession of a party unassociated with the criminal matter .
An attorney was admonished for a violation of Rule 1.3 of the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct . The attorney ’ s conduct was found to lack diligence with regard to the representation of the attorney ’ s client . The attorney failed to submit the required written plea agreement as negotiated with the State . The failure resulted in the lapse of the submission deadline and the issuing of a warrant for the client .
36 THE GAVEL