1 

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 

2023 ND 187

In the Matter of the Application for 

Disciplinary Action Against Mark J.

Pilch, a person addmitted to the the Bar of 

the State of North Dakota 

 ---------- 

Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court

of the State of North Dakota, Petitioner 

 v. 

Mark J. Pilch, Respondent 

No. 20230268

Application for disciplinary action.

DISBARMENT ORDERED. 

Per Curiam. 

[¶1] The Supreme Court has before it a report from a hearing panel of the 

disciplinary board recommending Mark J. Pilch be disbarred from the practice 

of law in North Dakota, refund the client in the amount of $5,500, and pay 

$250 in costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceeding. We adopt the 

hearing panel’s findings and recommended sanctions and order disbarment. 

[¶2] Pilch was admitted to practice law in North Dakota on April 29, 2019. 

Pilch’s license was suspended October 31, 2022, for failing to comply with 

continuing education reporting requirements. He did not pay a license fee for 

FILED 

IN THE OFFICE OF THE 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2023 

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
2

2023, and is not licensed at this time. In two separate matters, Pilch was 

disbarred and suspended for one year, both effective August 17, 2023. See

Disciplinary Bd. v. Pilch, 2023 ND 161, 994 N.W.2d 417; See Disciplinary Bd. 

v. Pilch, 2023 ND 162, 994 N.W.2d 390. Pilch practiced law at Pilch Law Firm 

in Fargo, North Dakota. 

[¶3] Assistant Disciplinary Counsel filed an affidavit outlining unsuccessful 

efforts to serve Pilch in other recent disciplinary matters. Therefore, service 

in these matters was made on the Clerk of the Supreme Court under Admission 

to Practice R. 1. Pilch failed to answer the petition and Disciplinary Counsel 

moved for default. Pilch is in default and the charges in the amended petition 

for discipline are deemed admitted under N.D.R. Lawyer Discipl. 3.l(E)(2).

[¶4] On July 24, 2023, the hearing panel filed default findings of fact, 

conclusions of law, and recommendations for discipline. Pilch was retained in 

November 2021 to represent a client in a divorce. The client experienced 

difficulty communicating with Pilch throughout the representation. Pilch 

failed to respond to or notify the client of a motion to compel discovery. The 

client was found in contempt and ordered to pay $1,500. Pilch also failed to 

inform the client of or attend a status conference. Pilch did not complete the 

representation or refund any unearned portion of the retainer. Pilch also failed 

to provide the client with a copy of his file. The client was required to retain 

other counsel to complete the matter. 

[¶5] The hearing panel concluded Pilch’s conduct violated N.D.R. Prof. 

Conduct 1.3, Diligence, by abandoning the client and not fulfilling the terms or 

accomplishing the objectives of the representation. Pilch failed to promptly 

respond to discovery requests, reply or otherwise comply with a motion to 

compel, and failed to attend scheduled hearings and conferences. The hearing 

panel concluded Pilch’s conduct violated N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.4, 

Communication, by failing to make reasonable efforts to keep the client 

reasonably informed as to the status of the representation, his responsibilities 

therein, and the consequences as a result of Pilch’s failures; and 1.16, by failing 

to take reasonably practicable steps to protect the client’s interests, 

specifically, but not limited to provide notice of discontinuation or services, 
3

provision of a refund of unearned monies, and surrender property to which the 

client was entitled.

[¶6] The hearing panel recommended we conclude Pilch abandoned

representation of the client. As we held in Baird v. Disciplinary Board, “Rule 

1.16(e) imposes on a lawyer the obligations to refund fees and return files upon 

termination of the representation. ‘Terminating the representation’ is not a 

violation of Rule 1.16(e); rather it is the trigger for the requirements to refund 

fees and return files.” 2022 ND 146, 977 N.W.2d 702. We noted another 

jurisdiction concluded a lawyer abandoned his practice through a temporary 

gap in representations, followed by resumed representations. Id. (citing In re 

Discipl. Proc. Against Wickersham, 178 Wash.2d 653, 310 P.3d 1237, 1243-44 

(2013)). In Baird, we concluded that the hearing panel found Baird abandoned 

the client, but it did not find he abandoned his law practice. Similarly, in this 

matter, the hearing panel concluded Pilch abandoned the client during 

representation but did not conclude Pilch abandoned his law practice. 

However, as in Baird, absent objection by Pilch and absent the benefit of the 

full vigor of the adversarial process to resolve this question, for purposes of this 

matter, we determine Pilch temporarily abandoned his practice, including his 

representation the client. The hearing panel considered the appropriate 

sanction under the North Dakota Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, 

and concluded disbarment was appropriate. 

[¶7] On July 24, 2023, this matter was referred to this Court under N.D.R. 

Lawyer Discipl. 3.1(F)(2). The hearing panel’s report was served on the Clerk 

of the Supreme Court and disciplinary counsel, and forwarded to the Supreme 

Court. Objections were due within 20 days of service of the report. No 

objections were received, and the matter was submitted to the Court for 

consideration. The Court considered the matter, and:

[¶8] IT IS ORDERED that as outlined above, the findings of fact, conclusions 

of law, and recommendations by the hearing panel are accepted. 

[¶9] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mark J. Pilch is DISBARRED from the 

practice of law, effective immediately.
4

[¶10] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Pilch pay restitution to the client in 

the amount of $5,500 within 30 days of entry of judgment.

[¶11] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Pilch pay the costs and expenses of 

these disciplinary proceedings in the amount of $250, payable to the Secretary 

of the Disciplinary Board, 600 East Boulevard Avenue, Dept. 180, Bismarck, 

North Dakota 58505-0530, within 30 days of entry of judgment.

[¶12] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that for any amounts already paid by the 

North Dakota Client Protection Fund on Pilch’s behalf, he make restitution 

within 90 days of entry of the judgment in this matter. For any amounts 

relating to this matter paid in the future by the North Dakota Client Protection 

Fund, Pilch make restitution to the Fund within 90 days of receiving notice 

payment was made.

[¶13] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reinstatement is governed by 

N.D.R. Lawyer Discipl. 4.5 and cannot occur until at least five years from the 

effective date of disbarment and compliance with the conditions of this order.

[¶14] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Pilch comply with N.D.R. Lawyer 

Discipl. 6.3 regarding notice.

[¶15] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. 

Daniel J. Crothers 

Lisa Fair McEvers 

Jerod E. Tufte 

Douglas A. Bahr