Court Opinion

ID: 9896050
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-09 15:08:03.92174+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:55.720645
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                              IN THE OFFICE OF THE
                                                                           CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
                                                                                OCTOBER 26, 2023
                                                                            STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                  IN THE SUPREME COURT
                  STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                                  2023 ND 204

  In the Matter of Reciprocal Discipline of Timothy P. Hill, a Member of the
                      Bar of the State of North Dakota

                                 No. 20230296

Recommendation for Reciprocal Discipline.

REPRIMAND ORDERED.

Per Curiam.

[¶1]   On August 28, 2023, the Disciplinary Board notified the Supreme Court
under N.D.R. Lawyer Discpl. 4.4(D) that it was recommending the reciprocal
discipline of Timothy P. Hill. The record reflects that the State of Minnesota
filed an order suspending Hill for 12 months for failing to place flat fees into a
trust account when Hill did not have a fee agreement compliant under
Minnesota law.
[¶2]   Disciplinary Counsel served Hill notice under N.D.R. Lawyer Discipl.
4.4(B) that a certified copy of the order of the Minnesota Supreme Court was
received. The notice informed Hill that he had 30 days to file any claim that
imposition of the identical discipline in North Dakota would be unwarranted
and the reasons for the claim. Hill responded asserting that identical discipline
should not be imposed in North Dakota, arguing the misconduct warrants
substantially different discipline in this state. On August 9, 2023, the
Disciplinary Board and Hill entered into a “Stipulation of Consent to
Discipline.” The Disciplinary Board, Disciplinary Counsel, and Hill agreed that

                                        1
based on the differences in North Dakota’s practice, rule language, and the
factors considered for the purposes of imposing sanctions, the misconduct at
issue would warrant substantially different discipline within this state.
[¶3]   With regard to handling a flat fee agreement, the practice in North
Dakota at the time of the underlying representations differed from Minnesota.
Rule 1.5, N.D.R. Prof. Conduct was amended, effective July 1, 2023, to reflect
practice of flat fee agreements and this Court’s decision in Disciplinary Board
v. Hoffman, 2013 ND 137, 834 N.W.2d 636 regarding this issue. The Court
agrees that not all conduct considered misconduct in Minnesota would be
misconduct in North Dakota. Additionally, the Court agrees that the
misconduct at issue would warrant substantially different discipline in North
Dakota.
[¶4]   The Court considered the matter, and
[¶5]   ORDERED that Timothy P. Hill is REPRIMANDED.
[¶6]   Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
       Daniel J. Crothers
       Lisa Fair McEvers
       Jerod E. Tufte
       Douglas A. Bahr

                                       2