In re Discipline of Hartke

14 Citing cases

  1. In re Disciplinary Action Against Harp

    560 N.W.2d 696 (Minn. 1997)   Cited 8 times
    Disbarring attorney for, among other misconduct, failure to comply with probation, client neglect, failure to return client files, abandonment of his practice, and noncooperation with disciplinary proceedings

    When determining the discipline to be imposed for attorney misconduct, this court accords great weight to the referee's recommendations; however, we are ultimately responsible for determining the appropriate sanction. In re Hartke, 529 N.W.2d 678, 683 (Minn. 1995). In making that determination, this court weighs the nature of the misconduct; the cumulative weight of the disciplinary violations; harm to the public; and harm to the legal profession.

  2. In re Disciplinary Action Against Moeller

    582 N.W.2d 554 (Minn. 1998)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that attorney's forgery of clients' signatures on retainer agreements violated Rule 4.1

    Therefore, we uphold the referee's finding that Moeller directed the forgery. In Re Hartke, 529 N.W.2d 678, 679-80 (Minn. 1995). The referee's findings as to the second forgery are supported by circumstantial evidence.

  3. In re Disciplinary Action Against Stanbury

    561 N.W.2d 507 (Minn. 1997)   Cited 8 times
    Holding that an attorney who had failed to pay debts could not avail himself of the good-faith defense "[a]fter final judgment and exhaustion of his legal appeals"

    [R]espondent's adamant stance against voluntary payment of valid debts, especially when such obligations were for goods and services used in respondent's law practice, "reflects adversely on his commitment to the rights of others, thereby reflecting adversely on his fitness for the practice of law."Id. at 348 (citation omitted); see also In re Haugen, 543 N.W.2d 372, 375 (Minn. 1996) (concluding that failure to timely pay court reporter fees is unprofessional conduct); In re Hartke, 529 N.W.2d 678, 683 (Minn. 1995) (concluding that failure to satisfy a fee arbitration award until two months after an ethics complaint was filed — and after a check was returned for insufficient funds — violated Minn.R.Prof.Conduct 8.4(d)); In re Ruffenach, 486 N.W.2d 387, 390 (Minn.

  4. People v. Preston

    10PDJ021 (Colo. Jul. 12, 2011)

    In re Pokorny, 453 N.W.2d at 348 (internal quotations and citations omitted). See also In re Stanbury, 561 N.W.2d at 510-11 (sanctioning attorney for refusal to pay law library charges and court filing fee); In re Haugen, 543 N.W.2d 372, 375 (Minn. 1996) (sanctioning attorney for failure to timely pay court reporter fees); In re Hartke, 529 N.W.2d 678, 683 (Minn. 1995) (sanctioning attorney for failure to promptly satisfy a fee arbitration award); In re Ruffenach, 486 N.W.2d 387, 390 (Minn. 1992) (sanctioning attorney for failure to voluntarily pay legal malpractice judgment).

  5. State Ok. Bar Ass'n v. Smolen

    2000 OK 95 (Okla. 2000)   Cited 20 times
    In Smolen, the court imposed a 60–day suspension on the attorney because it was his regular business practice to make such loans to clients and because he had previously been publicly censured for this conduct, but had continued to engage in the practice.

    In re Florida Bar Re Amendments to Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, 635 So.2d 968 (Fl. 1994) (A lawyer's gift to a client for basic needs without expectation of repayment does not violate the rules. Florida Bar. v. Taylor, 648 So.2d 1190 (Fl. 1995)); In re Reed, 599 N.E.2d 601 (Ind. 1992);Curtis v. Kentucky Bar Ass'n, 959 S.W.2d 94 (Ky. 1998); Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Eisenstein, 635 A.2d 1327 (Md. 1994); In re Discipline of Hartke, 529 N.W.2d 678 (Minn. 1995); Mississippi Bar v. Attorney HH, 671 So.2d 1293 (Miss. 1995), withdrawn, substitute opinion, reh'g denied, 1996 Miss. LEXIS 75 (Miss. 1996) (opinion substantially unchanged; imposing private reprimand) (Rule was amended in 1999 to explicitly allow advances for "[r]easonable and necessary living expenses." Attorney AAA v. Mississippi Bar, 735 So.2d 294 (Miss.

  6. In re Disciplinary Action Against Graham

    609 N.W.2d 894 (Minn. 2000)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that new misconduct occurring while the attorney was on probation was a “significant aggravating factor”

    In addition, the attorney's disciplinary history is relevant. See In re Hartke, 529 N.W.2d 678, 683 (Minn. 1995). We have said that we "`expect a renewed commitment to comprehensive ethical and professional behavior' after a disciplinary proceeding, and `[w]here leniency has been shown once, we are reluctant to do so again.'"

  7. In re Disciplinary Action Against Hanvik

    609 N.W.2d 235 (Minn. 2000)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that Hanvik did not have a severe psychological disorder when his depression was classified as moderate on a diagnostic scale

    In particular, this court "accords deference to a referee's findings when they are based on conflicting testimony or in part on a respondent's demeanor, credibility, or sincerity." In re Hartke, 529 N.W.2d 678, 679-80 (Minn. 1995). Upon review of the record before us, we conclude that the referee's findings as to Hanvik's remorse, pro bono work, and volunteer activities, are adequately supported by the record.

  8. In re Disciplinary Action Against Pinotti

    585 N.W.2d 55 (Minn. 1998)   Cited 18 times
    Holding that in attorney discipline cases, we uphold a referee's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous

    1987).In re Hartke, 529 N.W.2d 678, 679-80 (Minn. 1995).In re Strid, 551 N.W.2d 212, 215 (Minn. 1996) (quoting Gjovik v. Strope, 401 N.W.2d 664, 667 (Minn.

  9. In re Disciplinary Action Against Reiter

    567 N.W.2d 699 (Minn. 1997)   Cited 10 times
    Stating that we have "previously recognized that suspension of any length is harsh, particularly for a sole practitioner" after considering mitigating factors and weighing that against the need to protect the legal profession or the public

    However, the final responsibility for determining the appropriate discipline for attorney misconduct rests solely with this court. In re Hartke, 529 N.W.2d 678, 683 (Minn. 1995). Thus, in this case, we consider the referee's factual findings to determine whether they are clearly erroneous and we examine the recommended discipline to determine if it is appropriate, in light of the nature of the misconduct, the cumulative weight of the disciplinary rule violations, the potential harm to the public, and the harm to the legal profession.

  10. Disciplinary Action Against Bergstrom

    562 N.W.2d 674 (Minn. 1997)   Cited 8 times
    Considering the significant role depression played in causing misconduct

    We accord great weight to the referee's recommendation; however, this court is ultimately responsible for determining the appropriate sanction. In re Hartke, 529 N.W.2d 678, 683 (Minn. 1995). The misconduct found by the referee in this case would normally warrant suspension.