Case Title: In Re Cutting

Citation: 413 N.W.2d 505

Docket Number: C8-87-819

State: minnesota

Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Date: 1987-09-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
413 N.W.2d 505 (1987) In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Ernest E. CUTTING, an Attorney at Law of the State of Minnesota. No. C8-87-819. Supreme Court of Minnesota. September 29, 1987. AMDAHL, Chief Justice. The Director of Minnesota Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed with this court a petition in which he alleged that the respondent Ernest E. Cutting had in 1985 been appointed guardian of an automobile accident victim. In such capacity, the respondent though filing an inventory left unstated values on many inventory items. Although he was guardian for a number of months, he failed to obtain values on those items and, among other things, did not timely submit approximately $7,000 in unpaid medical bills to his ward's insurance carrier who because of the delay refused to pay the bills. The petition also alleged that the respondent had been sent a dissolution of marriage petition by the attorney for the ward's wife but that the respondent failed to proceed with the marriage dissolution for over seven months during which the ward was unable to use and obtain personal property in the possession of his wife which would have been beneficial to the ward. The petition further alleges that respondent ignored a request by the ward's father to dissolve a partnership owned by the ward and his father. The petition also contended that the ward's father filed a petition seeking removal of respondent as guardian. After some maneuvering, respondent did eventually resign as guardian, but he was delinquent in filing an inventory and final account to which objections were made including the amount of the respondent's fee charged therein. Subsequently, the court disallowed a number of the matters objected to and allowed others. Eventually, the successor guardian had difficulty in getting from the respondent all the estate assets. The petition likewise alleged that the respondent failed to file an amended final account as ordered by the court, all in violation of certain disciplinary rules of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct. In addition to handling that estate improperly, the second count of the petition alleged that the respondent had mismanaged the handling of an estate of a decedent in various matters and had failed to render appropriate accountings. The allegations of the petition were that the respondent's conduct in connection with this estate in failing to properly handle the matter and communicate with beneficiaries of the estate violated disciplinary rules. The petition likewise charged the respondent *506 with noncooperation with the Office of the Director of Lawyers Professional Responsibility on numerous occasions, all in violation of disciplinary rules. After initially filing an answer generally denying the allegations of the petitions at the time of the scheduled hearing before a court appointed referee, the respondent amended his answer to admit certain violations as alleged and the Director agreed to recommend a comprehensive conditional suspension as the appropriate sanction to be imposed by the court. The court has been furnished with a copy of the Director's petition, the original answer, and the court reporter's statement of the transcription of the hearing taken before the court appointed referee. The court having considered all of the foregoing, NOW ORDERS: 1. That effective today the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for 30 days. The hearing required by Rule 18(d) of Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility shall be waived but in lieu thereof before reinstatement shall be granted, the respondent shall be required to file with this court an affidavit with a copy filed with the Director which concerns his compliance with Rule 18(e) establishing all of the following: 2. After submitting the foregoing affidavit and assuming that the respondent is reinstated to the practice of law, the respondent will continue to be subject to two years' supervised public probation. The terms of this supervised probation shall be as follows: