From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Kraker

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT
Feb 1, 2021
953 N.W.2d 527 (Minn. 2021)

Summary

imposing public reprimand for failing to act with reasonable diligence in representation of one client, failing to promptly comply with the client's requests for information, and failing to explain a matter in order to permit the client to make an informed decision

Summary of this case from In re Bloomquist

Opinion

A21-0003

02-01-2021

IN RE Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST David L. KRAKER, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0057988.


ORDER

The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility has filed a petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent David L. Kraker has committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline—namely, failing to act with reasonable diligence in his representation of a client, failing to promptly comply with a client's requests for information, and failing to explain a matter in order to permit his client to make an informed decision. See Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3, 1.4(a)(4), and 1.4(b).

Respondent and the Director have entered into a stipulation for discipline. In it, respondent waives his procedural rights under Rule 14, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR), and unconditionally admits the allegations of the petition. The parties jointly recommend that the appropriate discipline is a public reprimand followed by 2 years of supervised probation.

This court has independently reviewed the file and approves the jointly recommended disposition.

Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Respondent David L. Kraker is publicly reprimanded.

2. Respondent shall pay $900 in costs pursuant to Rule 24, RLPR.

3. Respondent is placed on supervised probation for 2 years, from the date respondent returns to active practice, subject to the following terms and conditions:

a. Respondent is currently CLE and fee suspended from the practice of law. Respondent has not practiced law since 2010. Respondent has no current clients.

b. Should respondent, at any time in the future, restore his lawyer registration status to any active status, this supervised probation shall commence on the date respondent changes his lawyer registration status. Respondent shall notify the Director of any such change in his lawyer registration status within 5 business days.

c. Respondent shall cooperate fully with the Director's Office in its efforts to monitor compliance with this probation. Respondent shall promptly respond to the Director's correspondence by its due date. Respondent shall provide to the Director a current mailing address and shall immediately notify the Director of any change of address. Respondent shall cooperate with the Director's investigation of any allegations of unprofessional conduct that may come to the Director's attention. Upon the Director's request, respondent shall provide authorization for release of information and documentation to verify compliance with the terms of this probation.

d. Respondent shall abide by the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct.

e. If respondent restores his law license to active status, he shall be supervised by a licensed Minnesota attorney, appointed by the Director, to monitor compliance with the terms of this probation. Upon reactivation of his law license, within 5 days respondent shall provide to the Director the names of four attorneys who have agreed to be nominated as respondent's supervisor. If, after diligent effort, respondent is unable to locate a supervisor acceptable to the Director, the Director will seek to appoint a supervisor. Until a supervisor has signed a consent to supervise, respondent shall on the first day of each month provide the Director with an inventory of active client files described in paragraph f. below. Respondent shall make active client files available to the Director on request.

f. Respondent shall cooperate fully with the supervisor in his/her efforts to monitor compliance with this probation. Respondent shall contact the supervisor and schedule a minimum of one in-person meeting per calendar quarter. Respondent shall submit to the supervisor an inventory of all active client files by the first day of each month during the probation. With respect to each active file, the inventory shall disclose the client name, type of representation, date opened, most recent activity, next anticipated action, and anticipated closing date. Respondent's supervisor shall file written reports with the Director at least quarterly, or at such more frequent

intervals as may reasonably be requested by the Director.

g. Respondent shall initiate and maintain office procedures which ensure that there are prompt responses to correspondence, telephone calls, and other important communications from clients, courts, and other persons interested in matters that respondent is handling, and which will ensure that respondent regularly reviews each and every file, completes legal matters on a timely basis, and properly supervises any non-attorney working under his direction.

h. If respondent reactivates his law license, within 30 days from the date of reactivation, respondent shall provide to the Director and to the probation supervisor, if any, a written plan outlining office procedures designed to ensure that respondent is in compliance with probation requirements. Respondent shall provide progress reports as requested.

CHUTICH, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.


Summaries of

In re Kraker

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT
Feb 1, 2021
953 N.W.2d 527 (Minn. 2021)

imposing public reprimand for failing to act with reasonable diligence in representation of one client, failing to promptly comply with the client's requests for information, and failing to explain a matter in order to permit the client to make an informed decision

Summary of this case from In re Bloomquist
Case details for

In re Kraker

Case Details

Full title:In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against David L. Kraker, a…

Court:STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT

Date published: Feb 1, 2021

Citations

953 N.W.2d 527 (Minn. 2021)

Citing Cases

In re Bloomquist

Typically, a public reprimand is appropriate for significant lack of diligence relating to a small number of…