In re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Lachapelle

Supreme Court of Minnesota

In re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Lachapelle

479 N.W.2d 716, 1992 Minn. LEXIS 48, 1992 WL 28923

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedFebruary 11, 1992

DocketNo. C0-91-1953

StatusPublished

This text of 479 N.W.2d 716 (In re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Lachapelle) 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 Lachapelle, 479 N.W.2d 716, 1992 Minn. LEXIS 48, 1992 WL 28923 (Mich. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

WHEREAS, by petition for disciplinary action dated September 30, 1991, the Director of the Office of Lawyers’ Professional Responsibility charged Arthur W. Lachapelle with professional misconduct warranting disbarment; and

WHEREAS, after the respondent interposed an answer to the petition, the Honorable Harlan L. Nelson, Judge of the District Court of Seventh Judicial District, was appointed as Referee to hear the evidence and make a report of his findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendation; and

WHEREAS, on January 31, 1992, the Referee recommended to this court that Arthur W. Lachapelle be disbarred from the practice of law and that he be suspended pending the final determination of the disciplinary proceeding, Rule 16(e), Rules on Lawyers’ Professional Responsibility;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent Arthur W. Lachapelle be suspended from the practice of law until such time as this court has made a final determination as to what professional discipline, if any, is appropriate in the pending matter. The respondent shall, within 10 days of the date of this order, notify each of his clients of his inability to continue representation of the client and shall otherwise fully comply with the provisions of Rule 26, Rules of Lawyers’ Professional Responsibility.

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

ORDER

WHEREAS, by petition for disciplinary action dated September 30, 1991, the Director of the Office of Lawyers’ Professional Responsibility charged Arthur W. Lachapelle with professional misconduct warranting disbarment; and

WHEREAS, after the respondent interposed an answer to the petition, the Honorable Harlan L. Nelson, Judge of the District Court of Seventh Judicial District, was appointed as Referee to hear the evidence and make a report of his findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendation; and

WHEREAS, on January 31, 1992, the Referee recommended to this court that Arthur W. Lachapelle be disbarred from the practice of law and that he be suspended pending the final determination of the disciplinary proceeding, Rule 16(e), Rules on Lawyers’ Professional Responsibility;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent Arthur W. Lachapelle be suspended from the practice of law until such time as this court has made a final determination as to what professional discipline, if any, is appropriate in the pending matter. The respondent shall, within 10 days of the date of this order, notify each of his clients of his inability to continue representation of the client and shall otherwise fully comply with the provisions of Rule 26, Rules of Lawyers’ Professional Responsibility.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

479 N.W.2d 716, 1992 Minn. LEXIS 48, 1992 WL 28923, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-petition-for-disciplinary-action-against-lachapelle-minn-1992.