In re Panel File Number 99-5

5 Citing cases

  1. In re Case No. 23236

    728 N.W.2d 254 (Minn. 2007)   Cited 3 times
    Concluding that a supervising attorney violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.4(b) when she failed to inform her client that the other attorney working on the client's case was on involuntary restricted status

    Findings made in lawyer discipline cases are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard. In re Panel File Number 99-5, 607 N.W.2d 429, 431 (Minn. 2000); see also In re X.Y., 529 N.W.2d 688, 689-90 (Minn. 1995) (noting that since admonitions are a form of attorney discipline, the clearly erroneous standard should be used to review findings).

  2. In re Charges of Unprofessional Conduct in Panel Case No. 44387

    932 N.W.2d 310 (Minn. 2019)   Cited 2 times
    Imposing a private admonition for attempting to withhold client files

    To determine the appropriate discipline to impose, we consider four factors: "(1) the nature of the misconduct, (2) the cumulative weight of the disciplinary violations, (3) the harm to the public, and (4) the harm to the legal profession." In re Panel File No. 99-5 , 607 N.W.2d 429, 431 (Minn. 2000). The nature of the misconduct here is "non-serious."

  3. In re Charges of Unprofessional Conduct

    912 N.W.2d 224 (Minn. 2018)   Cited 1 times

    In determining what discipline to impose, we consider four factors: "(1) the nature of the misconduct, (2) the cumulative weight of the disciplinary violations, (3) the harm to the public, and (4) the harm to the legal profession." In re Panel File No. 99-5 , 607 N.W.2d 429, 431 (Minn. 2000). The nature of the misconduct here is "nonserious."

  4. In re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against A.B.

    854 N.W.2d 769 (Minn. 2014)

    . We review the findings made by a panel for clear error, In re Panel Case No. 23236, 728 N.W.2d 254, 257–58 (Minn.2007), but we have β€œthe final responsibility for determining appropriate discipline for violations of the rules of professional conduct,” id. at 258 (citing In re Panel File No. 99–5, 607 N.W.2d 429, 431 (Minn.2000)).

  5. In re Panel Case No. 17289

    669 N.W.2d 898 (Minn. 2003)   Cited 6 times

    We have affirmed admonitions based on minor violations of a single rule. See In re Panel File Number 99-5, 607 N.W.2d 429, 431 (Minn. 2000) (affirming an admonition of a lawyer for violating Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.2(a) for failing to take a settlement offer to an opposing party which his client wanted presented); In re Charges of Unprofessional Conduct Against 97-29, 581 N.W.2d 347, 351 (Minn. 1998) (affirming an admonition of a lawyer for soliciting business in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 7.3 when lawyer made a telephone call specifically soliciting).