Disciplinary Action Against Mose, In re, C9-89-1076

• Citation: 443 N.W.2d 191
• Decision Date: 19 July 1989
• Docket Number: No. C9-89-1076,C9-89-1076
• Parties: In re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST William G. MOSE, an Attorney at Law of the State of Minnesota.
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)

Page 191

443 N.W.2d 191

In re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST William G. MOSE, an Attorney at Law of the State of Minnesota.

No. C9-89-1076.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 19, 1989.

ORDER

The Director of Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board filed with this court a petition in which he alleged that the respondent William G. Mose had violated several of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct to the extent that he should be subjected to public discipline. In substance the petition alleged that during the course of representing a client in one dissolution matter, the respondent had failed to timely answer interrogatories, to notify opposing counsel that his client would be unable to attend certain scheduled settlement conferences, and failed to provide evidence of his client's income to aid the court at a hearing with respect to setting temporary support, had failed to timely seek reduction of child support and elimination of attorney fees awarded by court order, had failed to pay the court awarded attorney fees or seek to have the order set aside, had failed to prepare adequately for court conferences or hearings, and that all the aforesaid conduct violated the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct including, but not limited to Rules 1.1, 1.3, 3.4(d) and 8.4(d). With respect to another matter in which the respondent was retained to represent groups of employees and creditors owed wages from a corporation, the petition alleged that respondent violated his professional responsibilities by not properly drafting a complaint, in failing to pursue the restitution moneys, in failing to communicate with clients or answer their inquiries, and in failing to redraft a complaint or file an affidavit of default and supporting memoranda after being directed to do so by the court. These failures, the petition charged, violated Rules 1.1 and 8.4(d), 1.4 and 3.4(c) of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequently, the Director and the respondent entered into a stipulation wherein the respondent waived all of his procedural rights pursuant to Rules 14 and 15 of the Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility. In the stipulation, the respondent admitted all of the allegations of the petition. Also in the stipulation, the Director and the respondent joined in recommending that appropriate discipline be a public reprimand followed by two years of supervised probation.

The court having considered the petition, the admissions of the respondent and the stipulation, NOW ORDERS:

1. The respondent William G. Mose is hereby publicly reprimanded.

2. Effective July 15, 1989, the respondent shall be subject to two years supervised probation, the terms of which shall include:

(a) By February 1, 1990, he shall certify to the Director that he has...