In re Charges of Unprofessional Conduct in Panel Case No. 44387
Original Jurisdiction Office of Appellate Courts
Appellant Attorney, pro se.
Susan
M. Humiston, Director, Aaron D. Sampsel, Assistant Director,
Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility, Saint Paul,
Minnesota, for respondent.
SYLLABUS
1. A
panel of the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board did
not clearly err by finding that appellant attorney failed to
return client property and conditioned return of that
property on the client paying outstanding fees, thereby
violating Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.15(c)(4), 1.16(d), and
1.16(g).
2. A
panel of the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board did
not clearly err by finding that appellant attorney failed to
maintain an accurate client subsidiary ledger and commingled
an excessive amount of personal funds in the attorney's
trust account, thereby violating Minn. R. Prof. Conduct
1.15(a)(1) as interpreted by Appendix 1, 1.15(c)(3), and
1.15(h).
3. In
this case, a private admonition is the appropriate
discipline. Private admonition affirmed.
Considered
and decided by the court without oral argument.
OPINION
Per
Curiam
In this
discipline case, an attorney challenges the findings made by
a panel of the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board and
the discipline imposed. We conclude that the panel's
findings are supported by the evidence and are not clearly
erroneous, and that the appropriate discipline is a private
admonition.
FACTS
In
2010, W.Y. purchased 14.63 acres of land from J.Y. W.Y.'s
mortgage company refused to give him a mortgage unless the
property was split into two pieces: Parcel A, which contained
the homestead residence, and Parcel B, which contained
several buildings used for farm operations. At the closing
J.Y. refused to give W.Y. a warranty deed for Parcel B.
In
April 2011, appellant attorney (Attorney) was retained to
represent W.Y. in an action to obtain title to Parcel B. The
dispute between W.Y. and J.Y. was resolved via mediation in
August 2012. Afterward, J.Y. signed a warranty deed conveying
Parcel B to W.Y., which was notarized by the mediator. The
mediator mailed the deed and the abstract of title to
Attorney several weeks later.
Attorney
subsequently presented W.Y. with a bill for attorney fees and
costs in the amount of $327, 940.88. By early 2013, W.Y. had
paid only approximately $2, 800, missing several scheduled
payments. On February 8, 2013, W.Y. wrote to Attorney and
requested that he return the Parcel B deed and abstract. W.Y.
gave Attorney one week to do so.
On
February 11, 2013, Attorney sent a letter to W.Y. ending his
representation in the Parcel B matter due to nonpayment of
fees. On February 12, Attorney sent another letter to W.Y.
stating that, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 481.13 (2018),
Attorney had filed an attorney's lien against Parcel A,
Parcel B, and several items of W.Y.'s personal property-
including the Parcel B deed and abstract. On February 13,
Attorney sent a third letter to W.Y. in which he (1) affirmed
receipt of W.Y.'s letter requesting the Parcel B deed and
abstract; (2) restated that he had filed an attorney's
lien against W.Y. for unpaid invoices; and (3) declined to
return the warranty deed and abstract of title to W.Y. until
either the amount owed was paid or the court issued an order
regarding these documents.
On
April 23, 2013, pursuant to the attorney-lien statute, Minn.
Stat. § 481.13, subd. 1(c), the district court held a
hearing on Attorney's motion to establish and determine
the amount of his attorney's lien. The district court
issued an order establishing an attorney's lien on July
17, 2013. The district court concluded, however, that
Attorney could not assert an attorney lien on the warranty
deed and the abstract, citing both the abstract-transfer
statute, Minn. Stat. § 386.375, subd. 1(b)-(c) (2018),
and Minn. R. ...