Court Opinion

ID: 9663164
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:30:12.186806+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:46.181644
License: Public Domain

ORDER
Pursuant to the court’s opinion of August 1, 1986, the parties have submitted affidavits setting out their respective positions on the amount of costs and expenses respondent should be required to reimburse the Director. Further, the Director has petitioned for a rehearing of the entire case on its merits, and the Lawyers Board of Professional Responsibility has independently moved for leave to file an amicus brief.
At the time this court considered respondent’s motion for a 1-year suspension on a conditional admission, the court was under the impression that respondent’s tendered disposition was considered to be not “wholly unreasonable,” and that the parties were essentially in agreement on the amount of costs and expenses to be reimbursed. It now appears, however, from the submitted affidavits that the parties are more than $200,000 apart on the reimbursement item. Not only is the court not in a position to resolve this disparity, but the Director has filed further information, including a detailed procedural history, which leads us to believe we were not fully apprised of all the facte and circumstances at the time of our decision.
After a careful review, we conclude fairness and maintenance of the integrity of the judicial system require that we grant the Director’s petition. Our opinion and order of August 1, 1986, is withdrawn and vacated. The Board’s motion to appear as amicus being now moot, is denied.
IT IS, THEREFORE, NOW ORDERED that this matter is remanded to the referee, Judge Carroll Larson, for a hearing.
COYNE, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.