In re Disciplinary Action Against Hardwick

847 N.W.2d 702, 2014 WL 2895791
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedJune 11, 2014
DocketNo. A14-0273
StatusPublished

This text of 847 N.W.2d 702 (In re Disciplinary Action Against Hardwick) 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 Hardwick, 847 N.W.2d 702, 2014 WL 2895791 (Mich. 2014).

Opinions

AMENDED ORDER

The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility has filed a petition for disciplinary action seeking reciprocal discipline under Rule 12(d), Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR), based on an opinion of the North Dakota Supreme Court suspending respondent Brian T. Hardwick for 60 days, staying that suspension, and placing him on probation for 1 year. In re Hardwick, 841 N.W.2d 427, 429-30 (N.D.2013). The North Dakota suspension was based on respondent misappropriating $1,671 in law firm funds, practicing law while fee-suspended, collecting attorney fees for work performed while fee-suspended, and failing to adequately communicate with a client, in violation of Rules 1.4(a), 1.15(d), 1.16(e), 5.5(a), and 8.4(c) of the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct. In re Hardwick, 841 N.W.2d at 429.

The Director and respondent have entered into a stipulation in which respondent admits the allegations in the petition for disciplinary action and waives his rights under Rule 12(d), RLPR. The parties jointly recommend that the appropriate discipline is a 60-day, stayed suspension and 1 year of probation.

The court has independently reviewed the file and approves the jointly recommended disposition.

Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondent Brian T. Hardwick is suspended from the practice of law for a minimum of 60 days and placed on probation for 1 year;

2. Respondent’s suspension is stayed subject to his compliance with the following conditions of his probation:

a. Respondent shall have no further disciplinary complaints found to be meritorious during the period of probation;
b. Respondent shall refund $120 in unearned fees to Doris Emler;
c. Respondent shall comply -with the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct; and
d. Respondent shall comply with all the terms and conditions of the North Dakota Supreme Court’s March 13, 2013, order, as amended on May 10, 2013, in respondent’s North Dakota disciplinary proceeding;

3. If respondent violates the conditions of his probation, he will be subject to revocation of probation, lifting of the stay, and active suspension from the practice of [703]*703law for 60 days, without credit for any probationary period served; and

4. Respondent shall pay $900 in costs pursuant to Rule 24, RLPR.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Alan C. Page Associate Justice

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

Related

In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Singer
541 N.W.2d 313 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1996)
In Re Eskola
668 N.W.2d 424 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2003)
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Oberhauser
679 N.W.2d 153 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2004)
Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State v. Hardwick
2013 ND 250 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2013)
In re Disciplinary Action Against McFarland
652 N.W.2d 536 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2002)
In re Disciplinary Action Against Flores
681 N.W.2d 20 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
847 N.W.2d 702, 2014 WL 2895791, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-disciplinary-action-against-hardwick-minn-2014.