Disciplinary Action Against Leier, Matter of, s. 960248-960257
Decision Date | 22 April 1997 |
Docket Number | Nos. 960248-960257,960390,s. 960248-960257 |
Citation | 562 N.W.2d 741 |
Parties | In the Matter of the Application for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Patrick F. LEIER, A Member of the Bar of the State of North Dakota. DISCIPLINARY BOARD of the SUPREME COURT of the STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, Petitioner, v. Patrick F. LEIER, Respondent. Civil |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Vivian Elaine Berg, Disciplinary Counsel, Bismarck, for petitioner.
Frederick E. Whisenand, Jr., of Crowley, Haughey, Hanson, Toole & Dietrich, P.L.L.P., Williston, for respondent. Submitted on brief.
¶1 This is a disciplinary action against attorney Patrick F. Leier. In separate reports filed on September 4, 1996 and December 18, 1996, under Rule 3.1(F), of the North Dakota Rules for Lawyer Discipline, the Disciplinary Board found Leier committed numerous violations of the North Dakota Code of Professional Responsibility and the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct. 1 The Board recommends to the court Leier be allowed to resign from the practice of law for his misconduct, without possibility of reapplication for six years. The Board also recommends Leier be required to make restitution to specific complainants in the total amount of $151,811.92 and pay costs of the disciplinary proceedings of $1,351.30. Counsel for the Disciplinary Board filed objections, under Rule 3.1(G), of the North Dakota Rules for Lawyer Discipline, asserting disbarment, rather than resignation, is the appropriate sanction for Leier's misconduct in this case. Compare Matter of Disciplinary Action Against Anseth, 1997 ND 66, p 16, 562 N.W.2d 385 (1997) ( ).
¶2 Leier signed stipulations on December 22, 1994 and September 27, 1996, conceding he committed the violations charged, agreeing to pay the recommended restitution and disciplinary costs, and requesting he be allowed to resign from the practice of law, but consenting to accept whatever discipline the court determines to be appropriate. The December 22, 1994 stipulation states, in part:
In his appellate brief, Leier's counsel states:
¶3 We review disciplinary proceedings against attorneys de novo on the record under a clear and convincing standard of proof. Disciplinary Action Against Rau, 533 N.W.2d 691, 692 (N.D.1995). We accord due weight to the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Disciplinary Board; however, we do not act as a mere "rubber stamp" for those findings and recommendations. Disciplinary Board v. Gray, 544 N.W.2d 168, 171 (N.D.1996). Each disciplinary case must be reviewed upon its own facts to determine what discipline is warranted. Matter of Disciplinary Action Against Nassif, 547 N.W.2d 541, 542 (N.D.1996).
¶4 Leier was admitted to practice in the courts of this state on October 6, 1980. In representing clients between 1985 and 1993, Leier exhibited reprehensible conduct for a practicing attorney. 2 In numerous instances he failed to diligently represent his clients' interests, he mishandled client funds, and he lied to clients about the progress of their cases and the work he had done on their behalf. We need not detail the misconduct of the eleven separate disciplinary files. It is sufficient Leier concedes all charges of inappropriate conduct are true and concedes he violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically, DR 1-102(A)(4) ( ); DR 6-101(A)(3) ( ); DR 7-101(A) ( ); and DR 2-110; DR 5-102; DR 5-105 (prejudice and damage to a client during the course of professional relationship). Leier also concedes he violated the Rules of Professional Conduct, , Rule 1.1 ( ); Rule 1.3 ( ); Rule 1.4 ( ); Rule 1.5 ( ); Rule 1.8(a) ( ); Rule 1.15(c) ( ); Rule 4.1 ( ); Rule 5.5 ( ); Rule 8.1 ( ); and Rule 1.15 ( ). Leier further concedes his conduct violated the North Dakota Procedural Rules for Lawyer Disability and Discipline, specifically, Rule 1.2(A)(3) and (8) ( ) and Rule 6.3(A)(1) ( ).
¶5 Leier admits his conduct, absent mitigating factors, warrants disbarment from the practice of law. However, Leier asserts he suffered from mental illness, and in particular severe depression, when his misconduct took place, and his illness was not diagnosed or treated until recently. He requests this court to consider his illness a mitigating factor and to accept his resignation instead of disbarring him.
¶6 We summarized the relevance of emotional problems and mental disabilities as mitigating factors in Disciplinary Action Against Rau, 533 N.W.2d at 694-695:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Disciplinary Action Against Dooley, No. 980378
...[¶ 12] We review disciplinary proceedings against attorneys de novo on the record under a clear and convincing standard of proof. Matter of Leier, 1997 ND 79, ¶ 3, 562 N.W.2d 741. Although we give due weight to the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Disciplinary Board, we do ......
-
In re Disciplinary Action Against Crary, 20010200.
...an aggravating nor a mitigating factor in imposing disciplinary sanctions); In re Hoffman, 1999 ND 122, ¶ 25, 595 N.W.2d 592; In re Leier, 1997 ND 79, ¶ 7, 562 N.W.2d After the hearing panel issued its report, Crary sent a letter to the Secretary of the Disciplinary Board tendering his resi......
-
In re Disciplinary Action Against Seaworth, 990195.
...II [¶ 23] This Court reviews disciplinary proceedings de novo on the record under a clear and convincing standard of proof. Disciplinary Bd. v. Leier, 1997 ND 79, ¶ 3, 562 N.W.2d 741. We give "due weight to the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Disciplinary Board." Disciplin......
-
In re Disciplinary Action against Swanson, No. 20010160
...8, 620 N.W.2d 156. Each attorney discipline case must be reviewed on its own facts to determine what discipline is warranted. Disciplinary Bd. v. Leier, 1997 ND 79, ¶ 3, 562 N.W.2d III [¶ 7] There is no dispute over whether Swanson's actions in handling the Hoffas and Anderson estates const......