In Re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST John G. HOESCHLER, a Minnesota Attorney

Supreme Court of Minnesota

In Re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST John G. HOESCHLER, a Minnesota Attorney

872 N.W.2d 261

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedDecember 16, 2015

DocketA15-1710

StatusPublished

This text of 872 N.W.2d 261 (In Re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST John G. HOESCHLER, a Minnesota Attorney) 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 John G. HOESCHLER, a Minnesota Attorney, 872 N.W.2d 261 (Mich. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility has filed a petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent John G. Hoeschler committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline — namely, filing and settling *262 property tax appeals without the permisr sion of the property owners. See Minn. R. Prof. .Conduct 3.3(a)(1), 8.4(c), 8.4(d). In a stipulation for discipline,- respondent unconditionally admitted the allegations of the petition; waived his procedural rights under Rule 14, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR); and with the Director recommended that the appropriate discipline is a public reprimand. In the stipulation for discipline, the Director indicated that a public reprimand is the appropriate discipline in light of evidence of mitigating factors present in this case.

Respondent’s misconduct includes making knowingly false statements to the tax court. [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 Michael, 836 N.W.2d 753, 762-67 (Minn.2013) (30-day suspension for making a false statement to a court, disobeying a court order, making a frivolous argument, and improperly accusing a judge of bias); In re Warpeha, 802 N.W.2d 361, 361 (Minn.2011) (order) (60-day suspension for making a false statement about the attorney’s criminal history during voir dire when he was a potential juror)'; In re Van Liew, 712 N.W.2d 758, 758 (Minn.2006) (order) (90-day suspension for making a false statement 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 court has independently reviewed the file and, in -light of the evidence of mitigating factors, approves the- recommended disposition.

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

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Respondent John. G.- Hoeschler is publicly reprimanded; and

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

BY THE COURT:

/s/-— David R. Stras Associate Justice

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

ORDER

The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility has filed a petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent John G. Hoeschler committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline — namely, filing and settling *262 property tax appeals without the permisr sion of the property owners. See Minn. R. Prof. .Conduct 3.3(a)(1), 8.4(c), 8.4(d). In a stipulation for discipline,- respondent unconditionally admitted the allegations of the petition; waived his procedural rights under Rule 14, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR); and with the Director recommended that the appropriate discipline is a public reprimand. In the stipulation for discipline, the Director indicated that a public reprimand is the appropriate discipline in light of evidence of mitigating factors present in this case.

Respondent’s misconduct includes making knowingly false statements to the tax court. [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 Michael, 836 N.W.2d 753, 762-67 (Minn.2013) (30-day suspension for making a false statement to a court, disobeying a court order, making a frivolous argument, and improperly accusing a judge of bias); In re Warpeha, 802 N.W.2d 361, 361 (Minn.2011) (order) (60-day suspension for making a false statement about the attorney’s criminal history during voir dire when he was a potential juror)'; In re Van Liew, 712 N.W.2d 758, 758 (Minn.2006) (order) (90-day suspension for making a false statement 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 court has independently reviewed the file and, in -light of the evidence of mitigating factors, approves the- recommended disposition.

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

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Respondent John. G.- Hoeschler is publicly reprimanded; and

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

BY THE COURT:

/s/-— David R. Stras Associate Justice

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

872 N.W.2d 261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-petition-for-disciplinary-action-against-john-g-hoeschler-a-minn-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack