Opinion ID: 1595333
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Disciplinary Investigation

Text: The referee concluded that Fuller submitted false or falsified evidence in the course of a disciplinary investigation in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 3.3(a)(4), 3.4(b), 8.1(a) and 8.4(c). The referee found that Fuller misled the OLPR when he provided it with letters he purportedly wrote and sent before Hanson filed the disciplinary complaint against Fuller. Fuller provided the letter to the OLPR in an effort to prove that his charges against Hanson were not in retaliation for Hanson's complaint to the OLPR. Fuller asserts that he never told the OLPR that he had mailed the letters, but his correspondence to the OLPR suggests the letters were mailed. We conclude that the referee did not clearly err when he found that Fuller misled the OLPR with these letters.
The referee has recommended that Fuller be suspended from the practice of law indefinitely, with a 1-year minimum term of suspension, and that Fuller successfully complete a mental health evaluation and follow all recommendations of the evaluation. Although we afford great weight to the referee's recommendation for attorney discipline, we alone bear the final responsibility to determine what discipline is appropriate. See In re Klein, 442 N.W.2d 317, 321 (Minn.1989). In light of the purposes of attorney discipline-to protect the public, to protect the legal profession, and to guard the administration of justice-we determine the appropriate discipline by considering: (1) the nature of the misconduct, (2) the cumulative weight of the rule violations, (3) the harm to the public, and (4) the harm to the legal profession. In re Madsen, 426 N.W.2d 434, 436 (Minn.1988). We also consider mitigating and aggravating circumstances. See In re Haugen, 543 N.W.2d 372, 375 (Minn.1996). The referee found some aggravating factors when reaching his recommended disposition. Fuller had been warned that his letter-writing campaigns could form the basis for serious discipline. Further, Fuller acknowledged at his hearing that persons had asked him if he would like to have Hanson whacked, to which he responded, Not yet. However, Fuller did attempt to clarify this statement by explaining that he never would have harmed Hanson. The referee also found mitigating circumstances. The referee stated that Fuller obviously suffers from a mental illness or disability that impairs his judgment. The referee based this conclusion on the opinion of the psychiatrist who evaluated Fuller and Fuller's conduct during the disciplinary proceedings. The referee noted that Hanson may be a scalawag, but Fuller appears unable to make rational judgments when they involve Hanson. Our general rule is that mental illness is a mitigating factor that an attorney must raise. See In re Weyhrich, 339 N.W.2d 274, 279 (Minn.1983). An attorney who raises a psychological disability must prove five factors: (1) that the attorney has a severe psychological problem; (2) that the psychological problem was the cause of the misconduct; (3) that the attorney is seeking treatment; (4) that the treatment has arrested the misconduct; and (5) that the misconduct is not likely to recur. See id. Although Fuller has not acknowledged having a psychological disorder and is not seeking treatment, the OLPR admits in its brief that Fuller meets the first two requirements of the Weyhrich test. For guidance in determining the appropriate sanction, we turn to cases involving similar misconduct. See In re Madsen, 426 N.W.2d at 436. With the exception of a possible unrecognized psychological issue, we were faced with similar ethics violations in In re Nelson, 327 N.W.2d 576, 578-79 (Minn.1983). In Nelson, we suspended an attorney for 6 months because he exposed confidential client information and fabricated information in letters to the probate court, tax authorities, and the Minnesota Securities Division. See id. at 580. The referee in Nelson found that the violations were intentional and cost the attorney's clients thousands of dollars. See id. at 579. While Fuller also acted intentionally, the present case is different because there are no allegations or findings that Fuller's actions caused any financial loss to Imprint or Hanson. We also have reviewed cases which involve harassment of a client by the client's attorney, but generally in such cases there also have been additional unrelated violations. For example, in In re Mueller, 540 N.W.2d 77, 78 (Minn.1995), we imposed a public reprimand and 2 years of probation on an attorney who was making harassing phone calls to a client, which conduct resulted in a misdemeanor conviction. See id. Mueller entered into a stipulation with the OLPR that involved ongoing therapy and other conditions. See id. We accepted the stipulation and ordered the recommended sanction because Mueller's sanction included the psychological treatment necessary to arrest his inappropriate behavior. See id. In In re Selmer, we suspended an attorney, who was already on probation, for 1-year when it was discovered that over a 12-year period he had instituted harassing and frivolous litigation and had made false and misleading statements in response to discovery requests. See 568 N.W.2d 702, 704-05 (Minn.1997). Selmer is different from Fuller's case because Selmer instituted a number of frivolous suits and frivolous defenses to benefit himself. See id. However, the cases are similar in that both involve a variety of Rules of Professional Conduct violations and evaluating the cumulative effect of such violations. See id. In concluding that Selmer should be suspended from the practice of law for a minimum 1-year term, we were convinced that his abuse of the litigation process and lack of candor with the tribunal required such a sanction. See id. When we look to Selmer for guidance, we conclude that although Fuller has multiple violations, he has not shown the disrespect for the integrity of the judicial system that Selmer did. Our review of prior discipline cases shows that we have not yet addressed a situation where there is misconduct similar to Fuller's that may be accompanied by an unacknowledged psychological problem. Further, even though Fuller has not acknowledged having a psychological problem, the OLPR has admitted that Fuller's misconduct was caused by an unacknowledged psychological problem. In a situation such as this, we see no reason not to consider a psychological problem in determining the appropriate sanction. Although Fuller did not assert that his psychological condition is a mitigating circumstance, his failure to do so should not bar us from considering the role the condition played in the misconduct because we conclude that if Fuller addresses the symptoms that suggest he may have a psychological problem, he may be able to competently and diligently serve his clients. Therefore, we not only conclude that Fuller has committed misconduct that warrants imposition of a sanction, but we also conclude that Fuller's possible psychological problem needs to be addressed in the sanction. We conclude that the appropriate discipline is indefinite suspension with reinstatement conditioned on providing adequate psychological or other medical evidence establishing that Fuller has no psychological problem that would prevent him from practicing law competently, diligently, and within the rules of conduct for attorneys at law. Fuller may petition for reinstatement at any time upon an adequate showing that the problem that led to his misconduct has been treated such that it no longer interferes with his ability to practice law. Accordingly, we order that:

3. Before reinstatement, Fuller must provide the director with adequate psychological or other medical evidence establishing that he has no psychological problem that would prevent him from practicing law competently, diligently, and within the rules of conduct for attorneys at law; 4. Fuller must comply with the procedures for reinstatement under Rule 18, RLPR; 5. Fuller shall pay to the Director the sum of $900 in costs and disbursements pursuant to Rule 24, RLPR. So ordered. BLATZ, C.J., and GILBERT, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.