Case Name: In re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Gilda Marlene CLARK, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 293544
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 2014-06-26
Citations: 848 N.W.2d 236
Docket Number: No. A14-0862
Parties: In re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Gilda Marlene CLARK, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 293544.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Western Reporter 2d
Volume: 848
Pages: 236–236

Head Matter:
In re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Gilda Marlene CLARK, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 293544.
No. A14-0862.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
June 26, 2014.

Opinion:
ORDER
The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed a petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent Gilda Marlene Clark committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline, namely, including in the appendix to an appellate brief a document that was not part of the record on appeal and making false statements to a court in an expert witness affidavit and in an appellate brief, in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 3.4(c) and 8.4(c) and (d).
Respondent waives her procedural rights under Rule 14, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR), admits the allegations in the petition, and, with the Director, recommends that the appropriate discipline is a public reprimand.
[W]e have suspended attorneys for misrepresentations made to our judicial officers. In re Jensen, 542 N.W.2d 627, 634 (Minn.1996); see also In re Johnson, 744 N.W.2d 18, 18 (Minn.2008) (order) (60-day suspension for making false statements in letter to district court and during the disciplinary proceedings); In re Van Liew, 712 N.W.2d 758, 758 (Minn.2006) (order) (90-day suspension for making false statements to a tribunal and failing to file opposition to a motion); In re Scott, 657 N.W.2d 567, 568 (Minn.2003) (order) (30-day suspension for making false statements to a court in attorney's divorce and custody proceeding). The Director has explained that the recommended discipline was agreed to because of concerns involving problems of proof. In light of the unique circumstances of this case, we approve the recommended disposition.
Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent Gilda Marlene Clark is publicly reprimanded.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent shall pay $900 in costs, pursuant to Rule 24, RLPR.
BY THE COURT:
/s/Alan C. Page Associate Justice