LAWYER DISCIPLINE
Discipline Summaries
A lawyer received an admonition for violating Rule 3.4 of the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct regarding fairness to the opposing party and counsel . Clear and convincing evidence was found the lawyer made statements as to the lawyer ’ s personal opinion on the credibility of a witness in his opening statement during a jury trial . Clear and convincing evidence was also found the lawyer made further improper comments on the credibility of the opposing party and the party ’ s anticipated testimony .
A lawyer received two admonitions for violating Rule 3.8 ( a ) of the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct regarding the special responsibilities of a prosecutor . The admonitions were based on two separate complainants regarding the underlying conduct . Clear and convincing evidence was found the lawyer made multiple attempts to pursue a criminal charge when the lawyer knew , or should have known , the charge was not supported by probably cause . Clear and convincing evidence was present the lawyer continued to bring the criminal complaint before the Court until he was successful , only to have the Court later dismiss the complaint . In addition to the admonition , the lawyer was referred to the Lawyer ’ s Assistance Program for regular mentorship from the lawyer ’ s supervising attorney .
A lawyer received an admonition for violating Rules 1.3 and 1.4 of the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct regarding diligence and communication . Clear and convincing evidence was found the lawyer was not diligent in his representation of the client because there was a five- to six-month delay in working on the file that was not approved by the client . Clear and convincing evidence was also found the lawyer did not respond to the client ’ s requests for information for the five- to six-month period of time , despite the client ’ s communication attempts . In addition to the admonition , due to aggravating circumstances , the lawyer was also placed on probation for a period of 12 months and required to work with the Lawyer ’ s Assistance Program on office management .
A lawyer received an admonition for violating Rules 1.4 , 1.5 , and 2.1 of the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct regarding communication , fees , and the lawyer ’ s role as an advisor . Clear and convincing evidence was found the lawyer failed to provide the client with candid advice that a second emergency motion would likely fail and to provide reasonable communication with the client to allow the client to make an informed decision about filing the second emergency motion . Additionally , clear and convincing evidence was present the lawyer did not have reasonable communication with the client regarding the objectives of the representation with respect to the motions to be filed or about the meaning of the district court ’ s orders . Further , clear and convincing evidence was present the client incurred an unreasonable fee from the lawyer as a result of the unmerited second emergency motion being filed . In addition to the admonition , the lawyer was referred to the Lawyer ’ s Assistance Program to address business and billing practices .
A lawyer received an admonition for violating Rule 1.5 of the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct regarding fees . Clear and convincing evidence was found the lawyer charged the client an unreasonable fee when the billing for the representation given the work performed on behalf of the client . Aggravating factors were also present , including what was viewed as a pattern of misconduct with ongoing billing issues .
Notice of Order Disbarring Attorney
Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota , Petitioner vs . Jessica M . Hibl , Respondent No . 20200235
A hearing panel of the Disciplinary Board submitted a report in which it recommended Jessica M . Hibl be disbarred for violation of North Dakota Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4 . The hearing panel concluded Hibl engaged in a criminal act that reflects adversely on her honesty , trustworthiness , or fitness as a lawyer , and that she provided dishonest and deceitful information to law enforcement that reflects adversely on her fitness as a lawyer . After considering the aggravating factors under N . D . Stds . Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 9.22 , of dishonest and selfish motive by Hibl attempting to present herself as purely a victim of crime rather than a participant , and Hibl committing multiple offenses and the mitigating factor of no previous disciplinary history , the hearing panel recommended disbarment .
The Supreme Court disbarred Hibl effective Oct . 29 , 2020 , and ordered she pay $ 2,521.48 in costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceedings .
WINTER 2021 35