In Re Disciplinary Action Against Getty

452 N.W.2d 694, 1990 Minn. LEXIS 74, 1990 WL 26943
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedMarch 16, 1990
DocketC8-85-2372
StatusPublished
Cited by24 cases

This text of 452 N.W.2d 694 (In Re Disciplinary Action Against Getty) 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 Getty, 452 N.W.2d 694, 1990 Minn. LEXIS 74, 1990 WL 26943 (Mich. 1990).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Respondent Paris DonRay Getty, admitted to the practice of law in May, 1978, is before this court for a second time. In 1987, he was publicly reprimanded (for rude, loud and disrespectful conduct during various court proceedings, and for poor accounting and trust fund practices) and given an opportunity to correct his conduct. In re Getty, 401 N.W.2d 668 (Minn.1987). Now respondent is before the court again charged with additional misconduct, including failure to keep a client advised of the status of his case (Rule 1.4, Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC)), settling a case without the client’s authority (Rule 1.2), failure to promptly refund the trust account balance to the client upon withdrawing as attorney (Rule 1.16(d)), failure to keep adequate trust account or office account books and records (Rule I.15(a), 1.15(b)(3), 1.15(g)), and failure to promptly refund the unearned portion of a retainer fee (Rule 1.15(b)(4)). We order a sixty day suspension with a two year supervised probation following suspension.

The present action, filed on November II, 1988, by the Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility, charged respondent with four counts of misconduct. A referee was appointed and conducted a hearing on April 26 and 27, 1989. The referee found three of the four allegations in the disciplinary petition to be violations of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct. Of these three violations, only two are properly before the *696 court, 1 Count I and Count III. The referee recommended that respondent’s license to practice law be suspended for 45 days and that it be reinstated on condition that his law office practices and procedures, including books and records, be supervised for a period of two years by a lawyer appointed by the Director’s office. Respondent ordered a transcript of the hearing, therefore the referee’s findings are not conclusive. Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR), Rule 14(e).

Count I. Respondent represented Kenneth McKellar on a counterclaim for defective feed. Por a period of over four months respondent failed to respond to discovery requests sent to him by opposing counsel. Respondent failed to send any of the requests to his client. He also failed to appear at a hearing to compel production. The documentary evidence showed that 30 days after an order to compel was signed by the trial court, respondent informed his client about the order. In addition, just after the order was filed, respondent settled McKellar’s case without McKellar’s authorization and against his wishes. In July 1988, respondent unilaterally withdrew from representing McKellar but did not return McKellar’s unused trust fund until September 2, 1988, after McKellar filed a complaint with the Director’s office.

The referee concluded that respondent had settled McKellar’s case without permission in violation of Rule 1.2; failed to forward discovery requests to McKellar and failed to notify him of a hearing in violation of Rule 1.4; failed to withdraw promptly from representation and to promptly return McKellar’s unused trust fund balance in violation of Rule 1.16(d).

Count III. Respondent represented Janet Kern for excess liability as a third party defendant in a dram shop action. He also investigated the propriety of filing a section 1983 action on behalf of Kern and her son. He had previously represented Kern’s son in 1985 in a juvenile matter on an expenses-only basis. Respondent agreed to represent Kern in both the dram shop and section 1983 matters for a flat fee of $10,-000 which Kern paid. Respondent did little work on either case, and approximately 4 or 5 months after he was hired, Kern terminated the representation. She asked for an accounting and a refund of the unused portion of her $10,000.00 retainer. Respondent told her he would return $7,500. After repeated requests by Kern for a refund, respondent wrote Kern a check for $2,500, which was returned for insufficient funds. A few days after the bad check was written, Kern filed a complaint with the Director’s office. Respondent then sent her a wire transfer for $2,500. Kern was eventually awarded the remaining $5,000 after a fee arbitration. She never received more than an estimated accounting.

The referee concluded that respondent failed to determine the unearned portion of the retainer received from Kern and failed to put that portion into an interest bearing trust account in violation of Rule 1.15(a); failed to maintain complete records of all incoming funds and provide an accounting of those funds to Kern in violation of Rule 1.15(b)(3); failed to promptly refund the unused retainer in violation of Rule 1.15(b)(4); and failed to maintain books and records sufficient to show income and expenses in violation of Rule 1.15(g).

Respondent disputes most of the referee’s conclusions and the factual findings underlying them. “The standard of proof in attorney discipline proceedings is ‘full, clear and convincing evidence.’ ” In re Ruhland, 442 N.W.2d 783, 785 (Minn.1989) (quoting In re Gillard, 271 N.W.2d 785, 805 n. 3 (Minn.1978)). When there are disputed facts in a disciplinary action, the referee’s findings are given “great weight.” Id. at 786. “[T]he referee’s findings of fact will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous.” Id. at 785.

With regard to the McKellar matter, respondent challenges the facts underlying *697 the referee’s conclusions, and alternatively argues that the referee did not give sufficient weight to respondent’s testimony; that the referee erred in excluding evidence that respondent’s associate deliberately sabotaged his business; that the various instances of alleged misconduct are in fact not misconduct, and that even if thes misconduct is true, discipline is not warranted.

Many of respondent’s challenges to the referee’s findings and conclusions are based upon the fact that the referee chose not to believe respondent’s testimony. Respondent challenges the facts underlying the conclusion that respondent settled McKellar’s claim without authority. Respondent contends that the referee disregarded the testimony of himself, his associate, and his secretary, that McKellar told them that he wanted his case settled. Respondent also challenges the facts underlying the conclusion that he did not transmit the discovery requests to McKel-lar or notify him of the order compelling production. Respondent argues that at the hearing he testified that he had given the interrogatories to McKellar. The referee obviously disbelieved respondent’s testimony concerning these two incidents. When reviewing factual disputes, great weight is given to the referee’s findings, “especially * * * when the dispute is presented by conflicting testimony.” In re Ruhland, 442 N.W.2d at 786.

Additionally, there was other evidence to substantiate the referee’s findings.

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

Related

In re Disciplinary Action Against Albrecht
845 N.W.2d 184 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2014)
In re Disciplinary Action Against Tigue
843 N.W.2d 583 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2014)
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Waite
782 N.W.2d 820 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2010)
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Anderson
759 N.W.2d 892 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2009)
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Nelson
733 N.W.2d 458 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2007)
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)
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Cutting
671 N.W.2d 173 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2003)
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Erickson
653 N.W.2d 184 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2002)
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Stanbury
614 N.W.2d 209 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2000)
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Klein
609 N.W.2d 230 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2000)
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Thedens
602 N.W.2d 863 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1999)
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Oberhauser
581 N.W.2d 309 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1998)
In Re Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board Panel No. 94-17
546 N.W.2d 744 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1996)
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Jensen
542 N.W.2d 627 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1996)
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Singer
541 N.W.2d 313 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1996)
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Gurstel
540 N.W.2d 838 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1995)
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Bernard
534 N.W.2d 272 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1995)
In Re the Discipline of Hartke
529 N.W.2d 678 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
452 N.W.2d 694, 1990 Minn. LEXIS 74, 1990 WL 26943, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-disciplinary-action-against-getty-minn-1990.