Case Name: In re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Roland James THEILER, a Minnesota Attorney
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 2015-12-08
Citations: 872 N.W.2d 250
Docket Number: No. A14-0889
Parties: In re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Roland James THEILER, a Minnesota Attorney.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Western Reporter 2d
Volume: 872
Pages: 250–251

Head Matter:
In re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Roland James THEILER, a Minnesota Attorney.
No. A14-0889.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Dec. 8, 2015.

Opinion:
ORDER
The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed a- petition for disciplinary action, alleging that respondent Roland James Theiler committed the following professional misconduct. He failed to communicate with clients; held out a nonlawyer paralegal as a lawyer; failed to cooperate in disciplinary investigations; and used a misleading law firm name. • See Minn.- R. Prof. Conduct 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), 5.3(a), 5.3(b), 5.3(c)(2), 5.5(b), 7.1(a), 7.5, 8.1(b); Rule 25, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR).
On June 26, 2014, we suspended respondent pursuant to Rule 12(c)(1), RLPR, af ter he could not -be found in the state and the Director was unable to personally serve him with the petition for disciplinary action. In re Theiler, 848 N.W.2d 236, 237 (Minn.2014) (order). We provided that respondent'had 1, year to ñle a motion to vacate the -suspension order and for leave to answer the petition for disciplinary action and that failure to appear in this matter within 1 year would result in the allegations of the petition for disciplinary action being deemed admitted. Id. .
On July 31, 2015, we deemed the allegations in the petition admitted after respondent failed to file a motion to vacate the suspension order. In re Theiler, No. A14-0889, Order at 1-2 (Minn. filed July 3l, 2015). We provided that respondent could file a memorandum showing cause why the court should not discipline him. Id. at 2. We also invited the parties to submit written proposals regarding the appropriate discipline to be imposed. Id.
Respondent did not file a memorandum in response to the order to show cause. He also did not file a written proposal regarding the appropriate discipline. The Director asks the court to impose an indefinite suspension with the right to petition for reinstatement after 90 days.
Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Respondent Roland James Theiler is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law, with no right to petition for reinstatement until 90 days after the date of the filing 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 may petition for reinstatement pursuant to Rule 18(a)-(d), RLPR. Reinstatement is conditioned on successful completion of the professional responsibility-portion of the state bar examination and ¡satisfaction of continuing legal education requirements pursuant to Rule 18(e), RLPR.
BY THE COURT:
/s/_A___ David R.Stras Associate Justice