In re Disciplinary Action Against Dobson

Supreme Court of Minnesota

In re Disciplinary Action Against Dobson

494 N.W.2d 295, 1993 Minn. LEXIS 4, 1993 WL 2029

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJanuary 5, 1993

DocketNo. C1-91-276

StatusPublished

This text of 494 N.W.2d 295 (In re Disciplinary Action Against Dobson) 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 Dobson, 494 N.W.2d 295, 1993 Minn. LEXIS 4, 1993 WL 2029 (Mich. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

On July 11, 1991, this court suspended Daniel L. Dobson from the practice of law for a period of 6 months for professional misconduct including neglect of client files, misrepresentations to clients, and failure to [296]*296cooperate with ethics investigations. Thereafter, on January 22, 1991, Dobson filed a petition for reinstatement with this court. Pursuant to Rule 18, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility, a panel of the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board conducted a hearing on Dobson’s petition and, on November 18, 1992, filed with this court its findings of fact, conclusions, and recommendation. The panel concluded that Dobson had not sustained his burden of proof in these reinstatement proceedings and recommended that this court deny Dobson’s petition for reinstatement, a recommendation with which the Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility concurs. Dobson and the Director have joined in asking this court to issue a decision on Dobson’s petition for reinstatement without a referee hearing, briefing or oral argument.

The court, having considered all of the facts and circumstances surrounding this matter, Dobson’s petition, the Director’s report, and the Panel’s findings of fact, conclusions, and recommendation,

NOW ORDERS that the petition for reinstatement of Daniel L. Dobson, be, and the same hereby is, denied.

PAGE, J., took no part.

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

ORDER

On July 11, 1991, this court suspended Daniel L. Dobson from the practice of law for a period of 6 months for professional misconduct including neglect of client files, misrepresentations to clients, and failure to [296]*296cooperate with ethics investigations. Thereafter, on January 22, 1991, Dobson filed a petition for reinstatement with this court. Pursuant to Rule 18, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility, a panel of the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board conducted a hearing on Dobson’s petition and, on November 18, 1992, filed with this court its findings of fact, conclusions, and recommendation. The panel concluded that Dobson had not sustained his burden of proof in these reinstatement proceedings and recommended that this court deny Dobson’s petition for reinstatement, a recommendation with which the Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility concurs. Dobson and the Director have joined in asking this court to issue a decision on Dobson’s petition for reinstatement without a referee hearing, briefing or oral argument.

The court, having considered all of the facts and circumstances surrounding this matter, Dobson’s petition, the Director’s report, and the Panel’s findings of fact, conclusions, and recommendation,

NOW ORDERS that the petition for reinstatement of Daniel L. Dobson, be, and the same hereby is, denied.

PAGE, J., took no part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

494 N.W.2d 295, 1993 Minn. LEXIS 4, 1993 WL 2029, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-disciplinary-action-against-dobson-minn-1993.