STATE OF MINNESOTA 

IN SUPREME COURT 

Al5-1390 

In rePetition for Disciplinary Action against 

Duane A. Kennedy, a Minnesota Attorney, 

Registration No. 0055128. 

ORDER 

fiLII!Q 

January 5, 2016 

OmcE.OF 

APPB.LAJECCUITS. 

The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed a petition 

for disciplinary action alleging that respondent Duane A. Kennedy committed professional 

misconduct warranting public discipline-namely, practicing law while on a disciplinary 

suspension; holding himself out as authorized to practice law in Minnesota while he was 

suspended; and failing to clearly state that he was suspended in the written notices he 

provided to clients, counsel, and courts about his suspension. See Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 

3.4(c), 5.5(a), 5.5(b), and 8.4(d); see also In re Kennedy, 864 N.W.2d 342, 351 (Minn. 

20 15) (imposing a 30-day suspension and other discipline). 

The parties filed a stipulation for discipline. In it, respondent waives his rights under 

Rule 14, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR), withdraws the answer he 

previously filed, unconditionally admits the allegations in the petition, and with the 

Director recommends that the appropriate discipline is a public reprimand and the 

extension of his current disciplinary probation. Respondent acknowledged in the 

stipulation that, "based upon these admissions, this Court may impose any of the sanctions 

set forth in Rule 15(a)(l )-(9), RLPR, including making any disposition it deems 

1 
appropriate" and that the Director had not made "any representations as to the sanctions 

the Court will impose." 

This court suspended respondent for a minimum of 30 days, effective June 25, 2015, 

for committing professional misconduct. See Kennedy, 864 N.W.2d at 351. Respondent 

has admitted to practicing law during this period of disciplinary suspension. To impose a 

public reprimand for respondent's unauthorized practice of law would make the original 

30-day disciplinary suspension imposed by this court largely meaningless. See In re 

Jaeger, 834 N.W.2d 705,708 (Minn. 2013) (explaining that the court has applied "harsher 

discipline" when a lawyer practices law while on a disciplinary suspension, as compared 

to when a lawyer practices law while suspended for noncompliance with registration fees 

or CLE requirements). 

As a result, we reject the parties' recommended discipline. We conclude that an 

appropriate disposition is a suspension for a minimum of 30 days and a 2-year extension 

of respondent's current disciplinary probation. 

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

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. Respondent Duane A. Kennedy is suspended from the practice of law for a 

minimum of30 days, effective 14 days from the date ofthis 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 and disbursements pursuant to Rule 24, 

RLPR; 

2 
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 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. Upon reinstatement to the practice of law, respondent's current disciplinary 

probation shall be extended for an additional 2 years until July 25, 2019, subject to the 

following conditions: 

(a) Respondent shall cooperate fully with the Director's Office in its 

efforts to monitor compliance with probation. Respondent shall promptly 

respond to the Director's correspondence by the due date. Respondent shall 

provide the Director with a current mailing address and shall immediately 

notify the Director of any change of address. Respondent shall cooperate 

with the Director's investigation of any allegations of unprofessional conduct 

that may come to the Director's attention. Upon the Director's request. 

respondent shall provide authorization for release of information and 

documentation to verify compliance with the terms of this probation; 

(b) Respondent shall abide by the Minnesota Rules of Professional 

Conduct; 

(c) Respondent shall be supervised by a licensed Minnesota attorney, 

appointed by the Director, to monitor compliance with the terms of 

probation. Respondent's current probation supervisor may continue to 

supervise respondent if the supervisor is willing to do so. If not, within 2 

weeks from the date of this order, respondent shall provide the Director with 

the names of four attorneys who have agreed to be nominated as respondent's 

supervisor. If, after diligent effort, respondent is unable to locate a supervisor 

acceptable to the Director, the Director shall seek to appoint a supervisor. 

Until a supervisor has signed a consent to supervise, respondent shall on the 

first day of each month provide the Director with an inventory of client files 

as described in paragraph (d) below. Respondent shall make active client 

files available to the Director upon request; and 

3 
(d) Respondent shall cooperate fully with the supervisor's efforts to 

monitor compliance with probation. Respondent shall contact the supervisor 

and schedule a minimum of one in-person meeting per calendar quarter. 

Respondent shall submit to the supervisor an inventory of all active client 

files by the first day of each month during the probation. With respect to 

each active file, the inventory shall disclose the client name, type of 

representation, date opened, most recent activity, next anticipated action, and 

anticipated closing date. Respondent's supervisor shall file written reports 

with the Director at least quarterly, or at such more frequent intervals as the 

Director may reasonably request; and 

6. With respect to this suspension, the requirement of Rule 18( e)(3), RLPR, that 

respondent provide proof of successful completion of the professional responsibility 

portion of the state bar examination within I year of the date of this order is waived. 

Respondent, however, still must comply with Rule 18(e)(3), RLPR, with respect to the 

court's prior suspension order by filing with the Clerk of Appellate Courts and serving 

upon the Director proof of successful completion of the professional responsibility portion 

of the state bar examination by June 10,2016. See Kennedy, 864 N.W.2d at 351. Failure 

to timely file the required documentation shall result in automatic re-suspension, as 

provided in Rule 18( e )(3 ), RLPR. 

Dated: January 5, 2016 

4 

BY THE COURT: 

David R. Stras 

Associate Justice