December 15, 2016
The parties have filed a stipulation for discipline with the court. In it, Duchon 

withdraws his previously filed answer, unconditionally admits the allegations in the 

petition for disciplinary action, and waives his rights under Rule 14, RLPR. The parties 

recommend that, in light of mitigating factors, the appropriate discipline is an extension of 

respondent's cutTent indefinite suspension for a minimum of 3 years. 

"The presumptive discipline for misappropriating client funds is disbarment unless 

there are 'substantial mitigating circumstances.'" In re Olson, 872 N.W.2d 862, 863-64 

(Minn. 2015) (quoting In re Lundeen, 811 N.W.2d 602, 608 (Minn. 2012)). Moreover, 

attorneys who engage in the unauthorized practice of law while subject to a disciplinary 

suspension by representing multiple clients over a substantial period of time are subject to 

disbarment. See In re Jaeger, 834 N.W.2d 705, 707. 710 (Minn. 2013) (disbarring an 

attorney for representing clients in nine trademark proceedings over a 7-month period 

while on a disciplinary suspension). Duchon· s unauthorized practice of law was 

particularly egregious. Duchon flouted our order suspending him by representing at least 

26 clients over the course of 2 years. 

The parties have provided us with evidence that mitigating factors are present in this 

case, including mental-health problems and extreme personal stress. We do not consider 

the payment of partial restitution a mitigating factor in this case. Duchon repaid a retainer 

to one client, but he did so only after the client hired a new attorney and filed a lawsuit 

against Duchon. See In re Severson, 860 N.W.2d 658, 673 (Minn. 2015) (noting in a 

discussion of aggravating and mitigating factors that it was "troubling" that a former client 

'·was required to commence a lawsuit" in order to receive a payment from the attorney). 

2 
Nevertheless, we agree that disbarment is not warranted because substantial mitigating 

circumstances exist. 

The purpose of discipline for professional misconduct is not to punish the attorney 

but to protect the public and the judicial system and to deter future professional misconduct. 

In re Plummer, 725 N.W.2d 96, 98 (Minn. 2006). Given the significant misconduct 

Duchon committed, we conclude that the parties' recommended disposition is insufficient 

to protect the public and the judicial system and to deter future misconduct. As a result, 

we reject the parties' recommended disposition and conclude that an appropriate 

disposition is a 5-year suspension. 

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

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. Respondent James Carl Duchon is indefinitely suspended from the practice 

of law with no right to petition for reinstatement for 5 years from the date of this order. 

2. Respondent shall comply with Rule 26, RLPR (requiring notice of 

suspension to clients, opposing counsel, and tribunals) and shall pay $900 in costs pursuant 

to Rule 24, RLPR. 

3. Respondent shall enter into payment plans with his former clients, D.H. and 

B.A. Under these payment plans, respondent shall make monthly payments of $50 to D.H. 

until he has paid restitution of $400 and shall make monthly payments of $50 to B.A. until 

he has paid restitution of $750. 

4. Respondent may petition for reinstatement pursuant to Rule 18( a)-( d), RLPR. 

Reinstatement is conditioned on (a) successful completion of the written examination 

3 
required for admission to the practice of law by the State Board of Law Examiners on the 

subject of professional responsibility, (b) satisfaction of continuing legal education 

requirements pursuant to Rule 18(e), RLPR, (c) complete restiturion to D.H. and B.A., and 

(d) compliance with the terms of this court's March 19, 2013 suspension order. 

Dated: December 15, 2016 

4 

BY THE COURT: 

{)&4 /4-

David R. Stras 

Associate Justice