In Re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Tedman John HEIM, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 286047

Supreme Court of Minnesota

In Re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Tedman John HEIM, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 286047

857 N.W.2d 537

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJanuary 7, 2015

DocketA13-435

StatusPublished

This text of 857 N.W.2d 537 (In Re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Tedman John HEIM, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 286047) 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 Tedman John HEIM, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 286047, 857 N.W.2d 537 (Mich. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed a petition and supplementary petition for disciplinary action against respondent Tedman John Heim. The case was referred to a referee. Following a hearing, the referee concluded that respondent committed multiple acts of misconduct, namely, misappropriation of client funds, forgery of a client’s signature on a settlement check, engaging in a pattern of false statements to his client and his law partner to conceal the misappropriation, submission of misleading documents to a court and opposing counsel, failure to deposit client funds into a trust account, failure to keep required trust account books and records, making unauthorized personal charges on his law firm’s business credit card, and being convicted of a felony charge of check forgery/falsely endorsing a check, in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.4(a), 1.15(a), 1.15(c)(3), 1.15(c)(4), 1.15(h), 3.3(a), 4.1, 8.4(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d). The referee recommended that the court disbar respondent.

The Director and respondent entered into a stipulation in which they agree that the referee’s findings and conclusions are conclusive and waive their rights under Rule 14(g), Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR). The parties jointly recommend that the appropriate discipline is disbarment.

The court 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 Tedman John Heim is disbarred;

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

3. Respondent shall pay $900 in costs and $1,222 as disbursements 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

ORDER

The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed a petition and supplementary petition for disciplinary action against respondent Tedman John Heim. The case was referred to a referee. Following a hearing, the referee concluded that respondent committed multiple acts of misconduct, namely, misappropriation of client funds, forgery of a client’s signature on a settlement check, engaging in a pattern of false statements to his client and his law partner to conceal the misappropriation, submission of misleading documents to a court and opposing counsel, failure to deposit client funds into a trust account, failure to keep required trust account books and records, making unauthorized personal charges on his law firm’s business credit card, and being convicted of a felony charge of check forgery/falsely endorsing a check, in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.4(a), 1.15(a), 1.15(c)(3), 1.15(c)(4), 1.15(h), 3.3(a), 4.1, 8.4(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d). The referee recommended that the court disbar respondent.

The Director and respondent entered into a stipulation in which they agree that the referee’s findings and conclusions are conclusive and waive their rights under Rule 14(g), Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR). The parties jointly recommend that the appropriate discipline is disbarment.

The court 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 Tedman John Heim is disbarred;

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

3. Respondent shall pay $900 in costs and $1,222 as disbursements pursuant to Rule 24, RLPR.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Alan C. Page Associate Justice

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

857 N.W.2d 537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-petition-for-disciplinary-action-against-tedman-john-heim-a-minn-2015.