In RE Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Ronald RESNIK, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 009089X

Supreme Court of Minnesota

In RE Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Ronald RESNIK, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 009089X

888 N.W.2d 685, 2016 Minn. LEXIS 822, 2016 WL 7387621

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedDecember 15, 2016

DocketA16-1026

StatusPublished

This text of 888 N.W.2d 685 (In RE Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Ronald RESNIK, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 009089X) 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 Ronald RESNIK, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 009089X, 888 N.W.2d 685, 2016 Minn. LEXIS 822, 2016 WL 7387621 (Mich. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility has filed a petition for disciplinary action and a supplementary petition alleging that respondent Ronald Resnik has committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline. Resnik in one client matter failed to comply with court orders regarding the handling of client funds, forged or caused someone else to forge the client’s endorsement on. checks, kept funds for himself without the client’s knowledge or consent, stipulated to a settlement without the client’s knowledge or consent, and falsely notarized the client’s signature in settlement documents and submitted them to the court. See Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.2(a),. 3.3(a), 3.3(a)(1), 3.3(a)(3), 3.4(c), 4.1, 8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).

In addition, in multiple representations, Resnik made false statements to clients, opposing counsel, and the court regarding the work he had performed; failed to provide competent representation; failed to diligently pursue client matters; failed to keep the clients reasonably informed about the status of their cases; failed to return unearned fees; and failed to account for fees. See Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.4(a)(2), 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), 1.5(a), 1.5(a)(4), 1.5(b), 1.15(a), 1.16(d), 3.2, 3.3(a)(1), 4.1, 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).

*686 Furthermore, Resnik failed to cooperate with the Director’s investigation. See Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.1(b); Rule 25, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR).

Resnik and the Director have entered into a stipulation for discipline. In it, Res-nik withdraws his previously filed answer, unconditionally admits the allegations in the petition and the supplementary petition, and waives his procedural rights under Rule 14, RLPR. The parties jointly recommend that the appropriate discipline is disbarment.

This 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 Ronald Resnik is disbarred, effective as of the date of this order.

2. Respondent shall comply with Rule 26, RLPR (requiring notice of disbarment to clients, opposing counsel, and tribunals).

3. Respondent shall pay $900 in costs and $135 in disbursements 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 and a supplementary petition alleging that respondent Ronald Resnik has committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline. Resnik in one client matter failed to comply with court orders regarding the handling of client funds, forged or caused someone else to forge the client’s endorsement on. checks, kept funds for himself without the client’s knowledge or consent, stipulated to a settlement without the client’s knowledge or consent, and falsely notarized the client’s signature in settlement documents and submitted them to the court. See Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.2(a),. 3.3(a), 3.3(a)(1), 3.3(a)(3), 3.4(c), 4.1, 8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).

In addition, in multiple representations, Resnik made false statements to clients, opposing counsel, and the court regarding the work he had performed; failed to provide competent representation; failed to diligently pursue client matters; failed to keep the clients reasonably informed about the status of their cases; failed to return unearned fees; and failed to account for fees. See Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.4(a)(2), 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), 1.5(a), 1.5(a)(4), 1.5(b), 1.15(a), 1.16(d), 3.2, 3.3(a)(1), 4.1, 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).

*686 Furthermore, Resnik failed to cooperate with the Director’s investigation. See Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.1(b); Rule 25, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR).

Resnik and the Director have entered into a stipulation for discipline. In it, Res-nik withdraws his previously filed answer, unconditionally admits the allegations in the petition and the supplementary petition, and waives his procedural rights under Rule 14, RLPR. The parties jointly recommend that the appropriate discipline is disbarment.

This 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 Ronald Resnik is disbarred, effective as of the date of this order.

2. Respondent shall comply with Rule 26, RLPR (requiring notice of disbarment to clients, opposing counsel, and tribunals).

3. Respondent shall pay $900 in costs and $135 in disbursements pursuant to Rule 24, RLPR.

BY THE COURT:

/s/_: — :-: David R. Stras Associate Justice

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

888 N.W.2d 685, 2016 Minn. LEXIS 822, 2016 WL 7387621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-petition-for-disciplinary-action-against-ronald-resnik-a-minnesota-minn-2016.