Court Opinion

ID: 9883456
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 01:43:06.287014+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:23.446727
License: Public Domain

PAGE, Justice
(concurring in part,dissenting in part). \
I concur in that part of the court’s decision suspending Selmer and placing him onVpro-bation for a period of five years if and v&ien he is reinstated to the practice of law.\ I respectfully disagree, however, with that plart of the court’s decision regarding the length of Selmer’s suspension. In my view, the court’s decision suspending Selmer from the practice of law for 12 months goes beyond what is necessary to protect the public, guard the administration of justice, and deter future misconduct. See In re Jensen, 418 N.W.2d 721, 722 (Minn.1988). The more appropriate sanction would be to suspend Sel-mer from the practice of law for six months and to condition his reinstatement on an appropriate psychological evaluation and completion of any recommended treatment, in addition to the requirement that he comply with Rules 18 and 26, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility. Further, I would require Selmer’s probation to be supervised and would prohibit him from filing any lawsuit on his own behalf while on probation without the consent of his supervising attorney.
Therefore, I concur in part and dissent in part.