In re Disciplinary Action Against Marick

Supreme Court of Minnesota

In re Disciplinary Action Against Marick

546 N.W.2d 299, 1996 WL 200784

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedApril 26, 1996

DocketNo. C0-96-174

StatusPublished

This text of 546 N.W.2d 299 (In re Disciplinary Action Against Marick) 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 Marick, 546 N.W.2d 299, 1996 WL 200784 (Mich. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

WHEREAS, the Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility has filed a petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent Anthony M. Marick has committed unprofessional conduct, namely purchasing and selling shares at a profit of stock in a company based on confidential information he had obtained through legal work being done by the law firm he was employed by; and

WHEREAS, the respondent has unconditionally admitted the allegations of the petition, has waived any rights he has pursuant to Rule 14, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility, and has entered into a stipulation with the Director in which they jointly recommend a suspension of 9 months and recommend that the reinstatement hearing provided for in Rule 18, not be waived and that any reinstatement be conditioned upon respondent’s (1) payment of $750 in costs pursuant to Rule 24(d), (2) compliance with Rule 26, (3) successful completion of the professional responsibility examination pursuant [300]*300to Rule 18(e), and (4) satisfaction of the continuing legal education requirements of Rule 18(e); and

“WHEREAS, this court has independently reviewed the record and agrees that the conduct admitted to by respondent warrants the agreed to disposition,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent Anthony M. Marick is suspended for a period of 9 months with any reinstatement pursuant to the conditions set out above, as agreed to by both respondent and the Director. Respondent may apply for reinstatement 60 days prior to the expiration of his period of suspension.

The Director is awarded $750 in costs pursuant to Rule 24(d).

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

ORDER

WHEREAS, the Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility has filed a petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent Anthony M. Marick has committed unprofessional conduct, namely purchasing and selling shares at a profit of stock in a company based on confidential information he had obtained through legal work being done by the law firm he was employed by; and

WHEREAS, the respondent has unconditionally admitted the allegations of the petition, has waived any rights he has pursuant to Rule 14, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility, and has entered into a stipulation with the Director in which they jointly recommend a suspension of 9 months and recommend that the reinstatement hearing provided for in Rule 18, not be waived and that any reinstatement be conditioned upon respondent’s (1) payment of $750 in costs pursuant to Rule 24(d), (2) compliance with Rule 26, (3) successful completion of the professional responsibility examination pursuant [300]*300to Rule 18(e), and (4) satisfaction of the continuing legal education requirements of Rule 18(e); and

“WHEREAS, this court has independently reviewed the record and agrees that the conduct admitted to by respondent warrants the agreed to disposition,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent Anthony M. Marick is suspended for a period of 9 months with any reinstatement pursuant to the conditions set out above, as agreed to by both respondent and the Director. Respondent may apply for reinstatement 60 days prior to the expiration of his period of suspension.

The Director is awarded $750 in costs pursuant to Rule 24(d).

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Alan C. Page Associate Justice

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

546 N.W.2d 299, 1996 WL 200784, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-disciplinary-action-against-marick-minn-1996.