In Re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Gilda Marlene CLARK, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 293544

848 N.W.2d 236
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedJuly 2, 2014
DocketA14-862
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 848 N.W.2d 236 (In Re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Gilda Marlene CLARK, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 293544) 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 Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Gilda Marlene CLARK, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 293544, 848 N.W.2d 236 (Mich. 2014).

Opinion

ORDER

The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed a petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent Gilda Marlene Clark committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline, namely, including in the appendix to an appellate brief a document that was not part of the record on appeal and making false statements to a court in an expert witness affidavit and in an appellate brief, in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 3.4(c) and 8.4(c) and (d).

Respondent waives her procedural rights under Rule 14, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR), admits the allegations in the petition, and, with the Director, recommends that the appropriate discipline is a public reprimand.

[W]e have suspended attorneys for misrepresentations made to our judicial officers. In re Jensen, 542 N.W.2d 627, 634 (Minn.1996); see also In re Johnson, 744 N.W.2d 18, 18 (Minn.2008) (order) (60-day suspension for making false statements in letter to district court and during the disciplinary proceedings); In re Van Liew, 712 N.W.2d 758, 758 (Minn.2006) (order) (90-day suspension for making false statements to a tribunal and failing to file opposition to a motion); In re Scott, 657 N.W.2d 567, 568 (Minn.2003) (order) (30-day suspension for making false statements to a court in attorney’s divorce and custody proceeding). The Director has explained that the recommended discipline was agreed to because of concerns involving problems of proof. In light of the unique circumstances of this case, we approve the recommended disposition.

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

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent Gilda Marlene Clark is publicly reprimanded.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
848 N.W.2d 236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-petition-for-disciplinary-action-against-gilda-marlene-clark-a-minn-2014.