Complaint of J.G.
| Decision Date | 08 August 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. CX-85-1773,CX-85-1773 |
| Citation | 392 N.W.2d 544 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Complaint of J.G., Complainant, against R.P., Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
William Wernz, Director of Lawyers Professional Responsibility, St. Paul, for appellant.
Jack Nordby, Minneapolis, for respondent.
Pursuant to Rule 9(l ), Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR), respondent R.P. has filed a notice of appeal challenging a panel of the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board's (LPRB) affirmance of an admonition issued by the director in connection with an attorney fee dispute between respondent and complainant, J.G., a former client. We affirm as modified.
J.G. sought R.P.'s legal representation in connection with a marital dissolution proceeding, signing a retainer agreement by which she agreed to reimburse respondent for costs and disbursements paid or monies advanced by him on her behalf. On two separate occasions, R.P. was in Washington, D.C. on business unrelated to this client's interests and returned to Minneapolis specifically to attend to her affairs. This dispute arose when, in response to respondent's billing of these travel expenses, J.G. refused payment and filed a complaint with the LPRB. Complainant also objected to an item of correspondence in which respondent warned her that continued utterances regarding R.P.'s legal representation might give rise to an action for libel or slander.
During the pendency of these disciplinary proceedings, complainant also submitted the reasonableness of the fees to the Legal Fee Arbitration Board of the local bar association. Acknowledging the existence but ignoring the implication of the professional proceeding, the arbitrators reduced R.P.'s fees only by that amount representing the claimed travel expenses, finding those expenses inappropriate. The record reflects that R.P. has abided in all respects by the arbitrator's award.
The director, upon recommendation of the district ethics committee investigator, issued an admonition pursuant to Rule 8(c)(2), RLPR. Respondent demanded a hearing pursuant to Rule 8(c)(2)(iii) and, upon conclusion of the proceedings, the panel rendered its split decision affirming the admonition. No specific findings accompanied the decision and it is unclear whether the majority of the panel was in complete agreement with the bases of the director's admonition.
Respondent challenges not only the procedural propriety but also the substantive support for the issuance of an admonition. We turn first to the claim that a split rather than a necessary unanimous decision of the panel is contrary to the spirit of Rule 9(i)(1), RLPR, and in violation of his constitutional rights. He draws an analogy between these rules and the civil rules, urging the court to impose a unanimity requirement.
We decline, however, to do so, relying upon prior decisions distinguishing professional disciplinary proceedings from traditional civil or criminal actions. In re Rerat, 224 Minn. 124, 127, 28 N.W.2d 168, 172 (1947). While notions of due process attend various stages of these proceedings, technicalities of pleading or procedure do not. Id. at 128-29, 28 N.W.2d 172-73. See also In re Peters, 332 N.W.2d 10...
To continue reading
Request your trial