Opinion ID: 1866152
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Misrepresentations to the Court and the Director and Neglect of the Probate Estate

Text: In addition to the trust account improprieties, respondent also concedes making misrepresentations to the court regarding the fees and to the director regarding the trust account arrangement and neglecting the probate estate. As noted earlier, respondent filed with the trial court at the hearing to show cause an affidavit which gave an accounting regarding the attorney fees issue. This accounting did not reveal that some withdrawals were made by Visa through the CMA or that some were paid directly to the Gray & Lochow business account. Respondent argues that these facts were immaterial to the issue being litigated, i.e., attorney fees. Thus, he contends, the misrepresentation was not harmful. As this court noted in In re Schmidt, 402 N.W.2d 544 (Minn.1987), when a lawyer demonstrates a lack of that truthfulness and candor that the courts have a right to expect of their officers to the end that the system of justice will not be undermined, courts do not hesitate to impose severe discipline. Id. at 548. The proper focus then is not on the harm caused by the attorney, but the fact that misrepresentations were made before a judicial officer. Regarding the misrepresentations to the director, respondent cites cases where more egregious misrepresentations have been made and less discipline imposed. See In re Dowdal, 284 N.W.2d 394 (Minn.1979) (client's signature forged on an affidavit submitted to the court  public reprimand); In re Holmay, 399 N.W.2d 564 (Minn.1987) (client's signature forged, document falsely notarized, presented to the judge, and served on opposing party  30-day suspension). While it is true that misrepresentation to the director alone, in the proper fact situation, may not warrant a long suspension; in conjunction with violation of other rules, the behavior becomes more egregious. As to the delay in closing the estate involved here, we must accept the fact that it was a large estate. The responsibility was vast for a young and inexperienced attorney, and there was some justification for delay caused by the settlement of a lawsuit in connection with the decedent's death and the tax consequences to the estate. Thus, the discipline boils down to the proper sanction for the misrepresentations and deceptive statements made to the court and the director by respondent. There is no question that respondent withheld information about the CMA and the improper withdrawals made by credit card from that account even after respondent was aware that the uses were improper. Respondent had a duty to admit the improprieties to the court and the director when inquiry was made. Instead, respondent chose to engage in a series of misleading and deceptive disclosures to both the court and the director. For that, he must be disciplined. In looking at all the cases cited by counsel for both parties and the mitigating factors, we have concluded that an 18-month suspension is too severe a penalty for the infractions which have occurred and that 6 months is a more appropriate suspension. We do adopt all the referee's other findings and recommendations. Accordingly, it is ordered by this court: 1. That, upon filing of this order, respondent is immediately indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in the State of Minnesota. He shall not be eligible to petition for reinstatement for a period of at least 6 months. 2. Respondent shall pay $750 in costs and $2,000 in disbursements pursuant to the agreement of the parties made in this proceeding and Rule 24, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility. 3. Should a petition for reinstatement be granted following the 6 months aforesaid, respondent shall be subject to 2 years' supervised probation under a Minnesota attorney concerning any cases arising in Minnesota courts or involving Minnesota clients and shall maintain his trust account, books and records required by Opinion No. 9 of the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board and shall comply with any of the other conditions normally requested as conditions precedent for a petition for reinstatement.