Bolinske v. Disciplinary Bd. of the Supreme Court of N.D. (In re Bolinske), 20170333
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota |
| Citation | 908 N.W.2d 462 |
| Docket Number | No. 20170333,20170333 |
| Parties | In the MATTER OF the Petition for Leave to Appeal of Robert V. BOLINSKE Robert V. Bolinske, Petitioner v. Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of North Dakota, Respondent |
| Decision Date | 20 March 2018 |
908 N.W.2d 462
In the MATTER OF the Petition for Leave to Appeal of Robert V. BOLINSKE
Robert V. Bolinske, Petitioner
v.
Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of North Dakota, Respondent
No. 20170333
Supreme Court of North Dakota.
Filed March 20, 2018
Rehearing Denied April 19, 2018
Robert V. Bolinske, Sr., Bismarck, ND, petitioner.
Kara J. Erickson, Bismarck, ND, for respondent.
Per Curiam.
I
[¶ 2] In 2016 Bolinske campaigned for a seat on the Supreme Court. As part of his campaign Bolinske issued a press release alleging in part that certain members of the judiciary hid court records from the public. He claimed a petition for a supervisory writ he filed with this Court against a district court judge was purposely hidden or misfiled under the docket number of another case on this Court’s website.
[¶ 3] A disciplinary complaint was filed against Bolinske, alleging his press release violated the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct. Bolinske denied that his conduct was unethical. Bolinske appeared at a March 2017 meeting before the Inquiry Committee West and provided the committee with documentary evidence he claimed supported his position. The Inquiry Committee found Bolinske violated N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 8.2(a), relating to making false statements concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, and N.D. Code Jud. Conduct 4.3(A)(1), requiring judicial candidates to act with impartiality, integrity and independence. The Inquiry Committee issued Bolinske an admonition, determining the allegations made in his press release were made knowingly or with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity.
[¶ 4] Bolinske appealed the Inquiry Committee decision to the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court, which affirmed the Inquiry Committee’s admonition. Bolinske appealed to this Court.
II
[¶ 5] Our review of this proceeding is governed by N.D.R. Lawyer Discipl. 3.1(D), relating to informal district inquiry committee investigations and procedures. Under N.D.R. Lawyer Discipl. 3.1(D)(8), "[t]he determination of the board may be the subject of a petition for leave to appeal to the court, but leave will not be granted unless the person seeking leave to appeal shows that the board acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably." "[W]e construe
[908 N.W.2d 464
this provision to mean the arbitrary and capricious standard governs our initial decision to grant leave to appeal, and we apply it only in reviewing procedural aspects of the Disciplinary Board’s decision, rather than in reviewing the substantive evidence relied upon to support imposition of disciplinary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bolinske v. Sandstrom, 20220016
...Court affirmed, and we affirmed, concluding his procedural due process rights were not violated. Matter of Bolinske , 2018 ND 72, ¶ 11, 908 N.W.2d 462.¶3] In February 2019, Bolinske commenced this action and alleged the State Defendants denied him procedural and substantive due process, and......
-
Bolinske v. Sandstrom, 20220016
...Court affirmed, and we affirmed, concluding his procedural due process rights were not violated. Matter of Bolinske, 2018 ND 72, ¶ 11, 908 N.W.2d 462. [¶3] In February 2019, Bolinske commenced this action and alleged the State Defendants denied him procedural and substantive due process, an......
-
Bolinske v. N.D. Supreme Court, Civil No. 18-213 (DWF/CRH)
...an admonition. (Id.) The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the Disciplinary Board's decision. (Id. ¶ 17; see also Matter of Bolinske, 908 N.W. 2d 462, reh'g denied (N.D. 2018).) In its opinion, the North Dakota Supreme Court recounted the procedural history of the case, noting that Bolins......
-
Bolinske v. N.D. Supreme Court, No. 19-2516
...constitutional rights under the Due Process Clause. The court held that his right toPage 3 due process was satisfied. Matter of Bolinske, 908 N.W.2d 462, 465 (N.D. 2018) (per curiam). After the North Dakota court denied a petition for rehearing, Bolinske filed this lawsuit. He claimed that ......