In Re Disciplinary Action Against Cutting

671 N.W.2d 173, 2003 WL 22723427
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedNovember 20, 2003
DocketA03-926
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 671 N.W.2d 173 (In Re Disciplinary Action Against Cutting) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Cutting, 671 N.W.2d 173, 2003 WL 22723427 (Mich. 2003).

Opinion

*174 OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Respondent, Ernest E. Cutting, has been licensed to practice law in Minnesota since October 16, 1968. In a Petition for Disciplinary Action (Petition) filed on July 16, 2003, the Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility (Director) alleged that Cutting engaged in a pattern of misconduct involving 14 separate clients by “failing to timely file probate annual reports, affidavits of mailing, and receipts with the probate court and failing to promptly comply with probate orders” in violation of Rules 1.3, 3.4(c), and 8.4(d) of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC). In addition, the Petition alleged that Cutting failed to cooperate with the Director’s investigation into the misconduct in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.1(a)(3) and Rule 25 of the Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR). 1 Subsequent to the Petition, Cutting failed to serve or file an answer to the Petition and, by order filed August 7, 2003, this court, pursuant to Rule 13(b), RLPR, deemed the allegations contained in the Petition admitted. The Director recommends that Cutting be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.

In 1987, Cutting was suspended from the practice of law for 30 days and placed on two years’ supervised probation for mismanagement of a guardianship estate and failure to cooperate with the disciplinary proceedings. In re Cutting, 413 N.W.2d 505, 506 (Minn.1987).

Because the allegations contained in the Petition have been deemed admitted, the only issue this court must resolve is the appropriate discipline to be imposed on Cutting. The purpose of lawyer discipline is to protect the courts, the public, and the legal profession, and to guard the proper administration of justice. In re Bishop, 582 N.W.2d 261, 263 (Minn. 1998). This court considers four factors in determining the appropriate discipline: “(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 Muenchrath, 588 N.W.2d 497, 500 (Minn.1999). While this court may turn to cases involving similar misconduct in determining the appropriate discipline, each case is decided on its unique facts and circumstances. In re Brehmer, 642 N.W.2d 431, 433 (Minn.2002).

Neglect in handling probate matters is considered serious professional misconduct. In re Braseth, 352 N.W.2d 22, 23 (Minn.1984). Typically, this court imposes an “indefinite suspension in cases involving a continued pattern of client neglect when no evidence of mitigating circumstances is present.” In re Geiger, 621 N.W.2d 16, 23 (Minn.2001). In Braseth, a lawyer who seriously neglected five estate matters was indefinitely suspended for a minimum of two years. 352 N.W.2d at 23-24. In In re Olson, a lawyer who neglected 15 estates and submitted forged receipts to the court was suspended for six months with the understanding that he would retire thereafter. 442 N.W.2d 782, 783 (Minn.1989). Here, unlike Braseth, Cutting’s neglect did not harm his clients financially. Yet, in the matters where Cutting served as the lawyer for a guardian or conservator, his *175 clients were harmed by his neglect in that citations to appear were sent to them and they faced the possibility of further punishment if Cutting continued to neglect his duties. Further, as the Comment to Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3 points out, procrastination may be the most widely resented fault in the profession. Cutting’s neglect harms the profession as a whole. Cutting’s neglect also led to the waste of judicial resources as the probate court was repeatedly forced to “baby-sit” Cutting to get him to perform his duties.

This court has disciplined lawyers who failed to comply with court orders and failed to appear at hearings. In re Hau-gen, 373 N.W.2d 600, 600-01 (Minn.1985) (ordering a public reprimand and two years’ supervised probation for misconduct that included failing to comply with a discovery order and failing to appear for a hearing); In re Truelson, 427 N.W.2d 674, 674 (Minn.1988) (ordering an indefinite suspension for misconduct that included failing to comply with discovery requests and court orders and failing to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation).

Cutting’s misconduct is exacerbated by the fact that he has not cooperated with the Director’s investigation into his misconduct. Indeed, the failure to cooperate with the disciplinary process constitutes misconduct warranting discipline independent from the conduct underlying the Petition. In re Engel, 538 N.W.2d 906, 907 (Minn.1995); see also In re Thedens, 557 N.W.2d 344, 349 (Minn.1997) (stating that failing to attend a panel meeting was at least as serious a violation as failing to attend a prehearing meeting and merited a suspension). In Engel, this court noted the importance of cooperating and stated that the lawyer’s failure to cooperate “greatly hampered the investigatory efforts and demonstrates respondent’s failure to acknowledge either the seriousness of the proceeding or her disregard for her basic obligations as an attorney or a present inability to deal with any consequences for her actions.” 538 N.W.2d at 907. The same can be said for Cutting’s failure to cooperate. In Engel, this court held that the failure to cooperate warranted an indefinite suspension from the practice of law. Id.

This court also notes that previous misconduct of the same type is considered an aggravating factor when determining the appropriate discipline. In re Bernard, 534 N.W.2d 272, 276-77 (Minn.1995); In re Getty, 452 N.W.2d 694, 698 (Minn.1990). This court has imposed more severe sanctions when the current misconduct is similar to misconduct for which the attorney has already been disciplined. In re The-dens,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In re Disciplinary Action Against Sea
932 N.W.2d 28 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2019)
In re Eichhorn-Hicks
916 N.W.2d 32 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2018)
In re Disciplinary Action Against Tigue
900 N.W.2d 424 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2017)
In re Disciplinary Action Against Eskola
891 N.W.2d 294 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2017)
In re Disciplinary Action Against Michael
836 N.W.2d 753 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2013)
In re Disciplinary Action Against Nathanson
812 N.W.2d 70 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2012)
In re Disciplinary Action Against O'Brien
809 N.W.2d 463 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2012)
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Rooney
709 N.W.2d 263 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2006)
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Brooks
696 N.W.2d 84 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2005)
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Vaught
693 N.W.2d 886 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2005)
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Moore
692 N.W.2d 446 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2005)
Richard D. v. Rebecca G.
599 N.W.2d 90 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
671 N.W.2d 173, 2003 WL 22723427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-disciplinary-action-against-cutting-minn-2003.