Boulger v. Boulger

9 Citing cases

  1. Disciplinary Board v. McKechnie

    2003 N.D. 22 (N.D. 2003)   Cited 21 times
    Rejecting use of disciplinary proceedings as substitute for malpractice action

    [¶ 9] Admonitions are a form of "non-public" discipline. N.D. Stds. Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 2.5; In re Disciplinary Action Against Boulger, 2001 ND 210, ¶ 16, 637 N.W.2d 710. Disciplinary Counsel agrees admonitions are confidential, but argues the proceedings become public under N.D.R. Lawyer Discipl. 6.1B once a petition for discipline is filed with the board, and because the disciplinary history of the attorney may be considered in deciding the degree of discipline to be imposed under N.D. Stds. Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 9.22, the disciplinary history becomes part of the public record of the case. See Matter of Disciplinary Action Against Garcia, 366 N.W.2d 482, 485 (N.D. 1985).

  2. In re Disciplinary Action Against Kirschner

    2011 N.D. 8 (N.D. 2011)   Cited 7 times

    In considering that recommendation, we recognize that "[w]e decide each case on its own facts and, although we give due weight to the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Disciplinary Board, we do not automatically accept those findings." Disciplinary Bd. v. Boulger, 2001 ND 210, ¶ 5, 637 N.W.2d 710. [¶ 23] Standard 9.22(i), N.D. Stds. Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, says substantial experience in the practice of law is an aggravating factor, but this Court has also said that mitigating circumstances may include a lawyer's many years in the practice of law with no prior disciplinary record or history of prior misconduct.

  3. Attorney Grievance v. Lanocha

    392 Md. 234 (Md. 2006)   Cited 3 times
    In Lanocha, the attorney nonetheless advised his client to seek other counsel in connection with preparation and execution of the will, but she declined.

    Under the circumstances, we believe that the appropriate sanction is a reprimand. See State v. Eisenberg, 29 Wis.2d 233, 138 N.W.2d 235 (1965) (reprimanding an attorney for drafting a will, disinheriting his uncle's wife and daughter, in favor of his mother, from whom he might inherit); In re Disciplinary Action Against Boulger, 637 N.W.2d 710 (N.D. 2001) (reprimanding attorney for drafting will codicil that included provisions giving him substantial contingent testamentary gift, even though the contingencies did not arise).See also In re Blair, 840 So.2d 1191 (La. 2003) (imposing a three (3) month suspension on attorney, with no prior disciplinary record, who was relatively inexperienced and expressed sincere remorse, for preparing will for client that gave attorney's wife testamentary gift). In In re Disciplinary Action Against Boulger, 637 N.W.2d 710, 714-15 (N.D. 2001), the court elaborated:

  4. In re Edison

    724 N.W.2d 579 (N.D. 2007)   Cited 1 times

    [¶ 17] Under N.D. Stds. Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 2.0, potential sanctions for Harrie's conduct include disbarment, suspension, reprimand, and assessment of costs. See In re Boulger, 2001 ND 210, ¶¶ 14-17, 637 N.W.2d 710. In determining a proper sanction, N.D. Stds. Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 3.0 directs this Court to consider "(a) the duty violated; (b) the lawyer's mental state; (c) the potential or actual injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct; and (d) the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors."

  5. Hegald v. McKechnie

    657 N.W.2d 287 (N.D. 2003)   Cited 2 times

    Expert testimony about whether or not a rule of professional conduct has been violated is inappropriate in disciplinary proceedings. Disciplinary Bd. v. McKechnie, 2003 ND 22, ¶ 15; In re Disciplinary Action Against Boulger, 2001 ND 210, ¶ 13, 637 N.W.2d 710. As in McKechnie, at ¶ 17, "[w]e further conclude the expert testimony presented by McKechnie was not necessary to `assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.' N.D.R.Ev. 702. We will ignore the expert testimony in our de novo review.

  6. In Matter of Garaas

    2002 N.D. 181 (N.D. 2002)   Cited 7 times

    "[A] lawyer is not always protected by following the client's specific directions." In re Boulger, 2001 ND 210, ¶ 27, 637 N.W.2d 710 (Sandstrom, J., concurring). Not every lawyer excess is justified by the mantra of zealous representation.

  7. In the Matter of Howser v. Anderson

    639 N.W.2d 485 (N.D. 2002)   Cited 8 times

    [¶ 8] We do not condone the conduct of attorneys who draft a will and receive a substantial benefit under the will, and we have established a bright line that prohibits attorneys from drafting a will for non-relatives and receiving a substantial benefit under the will. See Disciplinary Board v. Crary, 2002 ND 9, ¶ 19, 638 N.W.2d 23; In re Boulger, 2001 ND 210, ¶ 7, 637 N.W.2d 710. However, this action is a will contest, not a disciplinary proceeding, and the trial court found the presumption of undue influence had been rebutted.

  8. In the Matter of Crary

    638 N.W.2d 23 (N.D. 2002)   Cited 7 times
    Finding a private reprimand an aggravating factor

    [¶ 19] Unlike the prohibitions in N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.8(a) and (b), Rule 1.8(c) creates a bright-line rule. See In re Boulger, 2001 ND 210, ¶ 7. Disclosure of the conflict to the client and advising the client to consult independent counsel are immaterial to a violation of N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.8(c). Courts interpreting other states' adoptions of Rule 1.8(c) of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct have held that the rule creates a strict and explicit prohibition against attorneys drafting documents which result in a substantial gift to the attorney or the attorney's parent, child, sibling, or spouse. See, e.g.

  9. In re Stepovich

    386 P.3d 1205 (Alaska 2016)   Cited 5 times
    Holding that remoteness did not lessen weight of prior-offense aggravator because, while offenses were "not all similar, a lawyer with a history of professional discipline should be familiar with the Rules of Professional Responsibility and particularly apt to tread carefully in circumstances that are ethically uncertain"

    Furthermore, we purposely depart from cases decided on similar facts that find no injury to the client. Courts recognizing the harm caused when a client does not receive "detached advice" in the writing of a will have imposed sanctions including indefinite suspensions. 637 N.W.2d 710, 711 (N.D. 2001).Id. at 712.