Opinion
A19-0631
01-13-2020
IN RE Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Karl O. FRIEDRICHS, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0153953.
ORDER
The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility has filed a petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent Karl O. Friedrichs has committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline, namely, breaching a fiduciary obligation by disbursing property proceeds, which were from the sale of a marital property, in order to pay his legal fees and other client expenses in violation of an agreement with opposing counsel to hold the funds in his trust account and disburse them only by agreement of the parties. See Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(c). Respondent acted incompetently by advising his client that the property proceeds could be used to pay his law firm’s legal fees, by failing to disclose his agreement to hold the property proceeds in trust to a contract attorney that he hired to handle the divorce case, and by advising the contract attorney that the property proceeds were available to pay the law firm’s legal fees. See Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1. Respondent also made a misleading statement by omission to the opposing party and the court regarding the amount of the property proceeds held in his trust account and failed to diligently and competently supervise the contract attorney, who also made misleading statements by omission to the opposing party and the court in numerous court filings regarding the amount of the property proceeds being held in respondent’s trust account. See Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 3.3(a)(1), 4.1, 5.1(a), 5.1(b), 5.1(c)(1), 5.1(c)(2), and 8.4(c). Respondent then failed to clearly and timely correct the court record regarding the amount of the property proceeds held in his trust account and his disbursement of those proceeds in payment of his law firm’s legal fees. See Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 3.3(a)(1), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).
The matter was heard before a referee, who made findings of fact and conclusions of law and found that clear and convincing evidence had been presented that respondent committed the alleged misconduct. The referee recommended that the appropriate discipline is a minimum 90-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. The parties jointly recommend that the appropriate discipline is a minimum 90-day suspension.
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 Karl O. Friedrichs is suspended from the practice of law for a minimum of 90 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 shall be eligible for reinstatement to the practice of law following the expiration of the suspension period provided that, not less than 15 days before the end of the suspension period, respondent files with the Clerk of the Appellate Courts and serves upon the Director an affidavit establishing that he is current in continuing legal education requirements, has complied with Rules 24 and 26, RLPR, and has complied with any other conditions for reinstatement imposed by the court.
5. Within 1 year of the date of the filing of this order, respondent shall file with the Clerk of the Appellate Courts and serve upon the Director proof of 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. Failure to timely file the required documentation shall result in automatic re-suspension, as provided in Rule 18(e)(3), RLPR.