Opinion
A19-0345
01-24-2020
IN RE Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Jon Eric PAULSON, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0390157.
ORDER
The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility has filed a petition for disciplinary action and a supplementary petition alleging that respondent Jon Eric Paulson has committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline, namely, neglect and non-communication in multiple client matters, lying to a client to conceal his neglect, failing to return clients’ documents and a file, improperly depositing clients’ unearned advance fee payments and filing fees into his business account, misappropriation of unearned client funds and filing fee advances, failing to maintain required trust account books and records, misuse of his trust account by commingling and paying personal expenses from the account, making an unauthorized and unearned charge to a client’s credit card, failing to inform a court that defendants had not been served in order to obtain more time to complete service, failing to correct a statement previously made to the Director during the investigation, which created a misapprehension known to respondent, and otherwise not cooperating in the Director’s investigation. See Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), 1.5(b), 1.15(a), 1.15(b), 1.15(c)(3), 1.15(c)(4), 1.15(c)(5), 1.15(h) as interpreted by Appendix 1 thereto, 1.16(d), 3.2, 4.1, 8.1(a), 8.1(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d), and Rule 25, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR).
Respondent and the Director have entered into a stipulation for discipline. In it, respondent withdraws his previously filed answers, unconditionally admits the allegations of the petition as amended and the supplemental petition, and waives his procedural rights under Rule 14, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR). The parties jointly recommend that the appropriate discipline is an indefinite suspension with no right to petition for reinstatement for 18 months.
At the court’s request, the parties have submitted memoranda regarding the extent to which respondent is ensuring that alcohol abuse and stress do not contribute or lead to any future misconduct, and regarding efforts respondent has made to provide restitution to the clients who suffered as a result of his misconduct.
The court has independently reviewed the file and approves the recommended disposition.
Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Respondent Jon Eric Paulson is suspended from the practice of law with no right to petition for reinstatement for 18 months.
2. Respondent may petition for reinstatement under Rule 18(a)–(d), RLPR. Reinstatement is conditioned on successful completion of the written examination required for admission to the practice of law by the State Board of Law Examiners on the subject of professional responsibility, see Rule 18(e)(2), RLPR ; satisfaction of continuing legal education requirements, see Rule 18(e)(4), RLPR ; satisfaction of any subrogation claims by the Client Security Board; and payment of full restitution to the clients who suffered as a result of respondent’s misconduct.
3. Respondent shall comply with Rule 26, RLPR (requiring notice of suspension to clients, opposing counsel, and tribunals), and shall pay $900 in costs under Rule 24, RLPR.
CONCURRENCE
MCKEIG, Justice (concurring).
I concur in the court’s disposition of this case. I write separately to express my concern with respondent’s apparent failure to meaningfully address his alcoholism. Respondent was diagnosed with a severe alcohol use disorder, and a chemical dependency assessment recommended in-patient treatment. To date, the record does not show that respondent has completed any such program. He has not completed any alcohol counseling or treatment. He has not enrolled in or participated in a program operated by Alcoholics Anonymous, Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers, or the equivalent.
Instead, respondent states that he quit drinking on his own in July 2019, and will stay sober by relying on friends and family and avoiding bars and breweries. Respondent "hopes to find a way to enter treatment soon."
If respondent applies for reinstatement, I expect that the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board will consider carefully whether respondent has addressed his alcoholism through counseling or treatment. If he has not done so, that would raise a major concern about whether respondent has met the criteria for reinstatement under Rule 18(a)–(d), RLPR. I concur in the disposition only because, upon applying for reinstatement, respondent will be required to establish that he has undergone the required moral change to render him fit to practice law. See In re Griffith , 883 N.W.2d 798, 800 (Minn. 2016).
LILLEHAUG, Justice (concurring).
I join in the concurrence of Justice McKeig.
HUDSON, Justice (concurring).
I join in the concurrence of Justice McKeig.