Summary
following the parties’ stipulation that included mandatory retirement paired with a shorter-than-typical suspension for the attorney's misconduct
Summary of this case from In re MajorsOpinion
A21-0351
12-20-2021
IN RE Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST L.W. FRANK, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0031471.
ORDER
The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility has filed a petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent L.W. Frank has committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline. We referred the matter to a referee, who made findings of fact and conclusions of law that respondent committed some of the misconduct alleged—namely, in an unclaimed property matter, making a statement to the court without a reasonable basis in fact; knowingly failing, once he learned that statement was false, to correct his statement to the court; and charging and attempting to collect an unreasonable fee; and in a separate unclaimed property matter, entering into a fee agreement for an unreasonable fee. See Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5(a), 3.1, 3.3(a), 8.4(a), and 8.4(d). The referee recommended that the appropriate discipline was a 10-day suspension.
Respondent and the Director have entered into a stipulation for discipline. In it, the parties waive briefing and oral argument to this court and stipulate that the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law are conclusive. Respondent specifically waives his further rights under Rule 14, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR). The parties jointly recommend that the appropriate discipline is a 10-day suspension, with eligibility for reinstatement only to permanent retired status.
We have suspended attorneys for making false statements to courts. See In re Ask , 899 N.W.2d 182, 182 (Minn. 2017) (order) (imposing 30-day suspension for making false statements to the court, in a plea petition, and to a police officer). But the parties agree "that there is no precedent in [our] jurisprudence for a 10-day suspension." Instead, when this court imposes suspensions, it typically does so for at least a minimum of 30 days. Nevertheless, "[t]he purpose of discipline for professional misconduct is not to punish the attorney but rather to protect the public, to protect the judicial system, and to deter future misconduct by the disciplined attorney as well as by other attorneys." In re Engel , 859 N.W.2d 788, 789 (Minn. 2015) (order) (citing In re Rebeau , 787 N.W.2d 168, 173 (Minn. 2010) ). Under the unique circumstances of this case, the combination of a brief suspension and respondent's permanent retirement from the practice of law will adequately serve the purpose of discipline.
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 L.W. Frank is suspended from the practice of law for a minimum of 10 days, effective 14 days from the date of this order.
2. Respondent shall comply with Rule 26, RLPR (requiring notice of suspension to clients, opposing counsel, and tribunals).
3. Respondent shall pay $900 in costs pursuant to Rule 24, RLPR.
4. Respondent may apply for reinstatement by filing with the Clerk of the Appellate Courts and serving upon the Director the affidavit required by Rule 18(f), RLPR.
5. At the same time respondent submits the Rule 18(f), RLPR affidavit, respondent shall also submit the Retirement Affidavit specified by Rule 7(A), Rules of the Supreme Court on Lawyer Registration (RSCLR), except respondent's statement in the Retirement Affidavit that he "is in good standing with the Lawyer Registration Office," as required under that Rule, shall be made noting the sole exception that respondent is suspended pursuant to this order. Failure to submit the Retirement Affidavit required by Rule 7(A), RSCLR, with the reinstatement affidavit under Rule 18(f), RLPR, will result in denial of reinstatement.
6. If respondent's affidavits comply with the applicable rules, with the exceptions noted above, then he shall be reinstated and immediately transferred to permanent inactive status. Respondent shall not practice law in the State of Minnesota in any manner, notwithstanding Rule 7(D), RSCLR, and respondent shall not apply for reinstatement to active status in this state.
7. Because any reinstatement will be to permanent inactive status only, the requirement of Rule 18(e)(3), RLPR, that respondent successfully complete 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 4.A.(5), Rules for Admission to the Bar (requiring evidence that an applicant has successfully completed the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination), is waived.