From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against John G. Hoeschler

Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Dec 9, 2015
872 N.W.2d 261 (Minn. 2015)

Opinion

No. A15–1710.

12-09-2015

In re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST John G. HOESCHLER, a Minnesota Attorney.


ORDER

The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility has filed a petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent John G. Hoeschler committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline—namely, filing and settling property tax appeals without the permission of the property owners. See Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 3.3(a)(1), 8.4(c), 8.4(d). In a stipulation for discipline, respondent unconditionally admitted the allegations of the petition; waived his procedural rights under Rule 14, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR); and with the Director recommended that the appropriate discipline is a public reprimand. In the stipulation for discipline, the Director indicated that a public reprimand is the appropriate discipline in light of evidence of mitigating factors present in this case.

Respondent's misconduct includes making knowingly false statements to the tax court. [W]e have suspended attorneys for misrepresentations made to our judicial officers. In re Jensen, 542 N.W.2d 627, 634 (Minn.1996); see also In re Michael, 836 N.W.2d 753, 762–67 (Minn.2013) (30–day suspension for making a false statement to a court, disobeying a court order, making a frivolous argument, and improperly accusing a judge of bias); In re Warpeha, 802 N.W.2d 361, 361 (Minn.2011) (order) (60–day suspension for making a false statement about the attorney's criminal history during voir dire when he was a potential juror); In re Van Liew, 712 N.W.2d 758, 758 (Minn.2006) (order) (90–day suspension for making a false statement to a tribunal and failing to file opposition to a motion); In re Scott, 657 N.W.2d 567, 568 (Minn.2003) (order) (30–day suspension for making false statements to a court in attorney's divorce and custody proceeding).

The court has independently reviewed the file and, in light of the evidence of mitigating factors, approves the recommended disposition.

Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Respondent John G. Hoeschler is publicly reprimanded; and

2. Respondent shall pay $900 in costs pursuant to Rule 24, RLPR.

BY THE COURT:

/s/____________________

David R. Stras

Associate Justice


Summaries of

In re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against John G. Hoeschler

Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Dec 9, 2015
872 N.W.2d 261 (Minn. 2015)
Case details for

In re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against John G. Hoeschler

Case Details

Full title:In re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST John G. HOESCHLER, a…

Court:Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Date published: Dec 9, 2015

Citations

872 N.W.2d 261 (Minn. 2015)

Citing Cases

In re Gallatin

But we have imposed a public reprimand in cases involving false statements to a court when there was…

In re McGuire

But we have imposed a public reprimand in cases involving misstatements to a court when there was evidence of…