Disciplinary Action Against Ruhland, In re, C4-88-1914

• Decision Date: 07 July 1989
• Docket Number: No. C4-88-1914,C4-88-1914
• Citation: 442 N.W.2d 783
• Parties: In re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Douglas A. RUHLAND, an Attorney at Law of the State of Minnesota.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 783

442 N.W.2d 783

In re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Douglas A. RUHLAND, an Attorney at Law of the State of Minnesota.

No. C4-88-1914.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 7, 1989.

Syllabus by the Court

Respondent's failure to honor agreement with opposing counsel and trial court, disclose exercise of attorney's lien and obey trial court's order to pay funds to an opposing party was professional misconduct which violated Rules 8.4(c) and (d) of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct.

William J. Wernz, Director of the Office of Lawyers' Professional Responsibility, Wendy Willson Legge, Ass't Director, Saint Paul, for appellant.

John M. Martin, Saint Paul, for respondent.

Heard, considered and decided by the court en banc.

PER CURIAM.

This case arises from a disciplinary complaint brought against respondent, Douglas A. Ruhland, alleging, among other misconduct, that he failed to pay funds to an opposing party as directed by a court order. Following the filing of a disciplinary petition by the director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility, a hearing was held on January 4-5, 1989, before a court-appointed referee. The referee issued findings of fact and conclusions of law and found that respondent's conduct had violated Rules 8.4(c) and (d) of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct and recommended that respondent be publicly reprimanded and be assessed costs pursuant to Rule 24(a) and 24(b) of the Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility. We concur in the referee's findings and impose discipline.

In this matter, the referee's findings of fact are not conclusive because respondent ordered a transcript pursuant to Rule 14(e) of the Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility. The parties have, however, stipulated to most of the underlying facts and only two material factual events are in dispute.

The respondent, Douglas A. Ruhland, was admitted to practice law in Minnesota on May 5, 1978, and currently practices in Eden Valley, Minnesota.

In the spring of 1984, Loren Larson retained respondent to represent him in a post-dissolution dispute over child support payments with his former spouse, Laurel Larson. In August of 1984, Wright County District Court Judge Kim Johnson ordered that the amount of child support Larson paid to his ex-wife be increased from $150 to $430 per month. Mr. Larson appealed this order to the Minnesota Court of Appeals.

On January 7, 1985, during the pendency of this appeal, Ms. Larson moved to find Mr. Larson in constructive civil contempt for failure to pay the increased amount of child support. Judge Johnson found Mr. Larson in contempt, but allowed him to stay contempt proceedings by posting a supersedeas bond of $3,640, the amount of arrearage in child support.

The court of appeals subsequently reversed the increase in child support and remanded to the trial court for further evidentiary findings concerning Mr. Larson's income. Following an evidentiary hearing, Judge Johnson issued an order dated June 27, 1986, which established child support at $390 per month, retroactive to August 15, 1984, and provided that Mr. Larson's cash deposit of $3,640 plus interest be returned to him despite the fact that arrearages still existed in child support. On June 30, the Wright County Court administrator mailed a check for $3,996.26 to respondent payable to Loren Larson.

Laurel Larson's attorney, Doris McKinnis, believed that the return of the cash deposit to Mr. Larson was in error and arranged a telephone conference call with respondent and Judge Johnson to discuss the matter.

The parties dispute what occurred during this conference call. The director alleges, the referee found, and both Judge Johnson and McKinnis testified that, during the July 1 conference call, Judge Johnson asked respondent to hold the check which had been sent to Mr. Larson and that respondent expressed reluctance at doing so, but finally agreed. Following this conference call, both Judge Johnson and McKinnis understood that respondent would retain the check pending a decision on a motion made by McKinnis to amend the June 27 order.

Contrarily, respondent maintains that, at no time during the July 1 conference call, did he agree to hold the check pending a decision on McMinnis's motion. Instead, respondent contends that he told Judge Johnson and McKinnis that he would have to consult with his client before agreeing to anything.

On July 1, shortly after this conference call, respondent imposed an attorney's lien on the check issued to his client. Later that evening, after discussing the matter with Mr. Larson and obtaining his endorsement, respondent deposited the check in his trust account.

On July 28, 1986, a hearing was held before Judge Johnson to hear formal motions from both respondent and McKinnis to amend the June 27 order. At this hearing, respondent informed the court that he had placed the check in his trust account and imposed an attorney's lien against these funds.

Respondent contends that, at the conclusion of the July 28 hearing, Judge Johnson stated that he was not inclined to amend his June 27 order. The director alleges, and the referee found, however, that Judge Johnson gave no indication as to how he would rule and said only that he would take the matter under advisement. In addition, Judge Johnson testified that, in his own mind, he had decided that the return of the money to Mr. Larson had been a mistake. ¹

On July 28, immediately after the hearing, respondent returned to his office where he wrote a check for $3,995.36 on his trust account payable to his business account in satisfaction of his attorney's lien. After this transaction, only $.90 remained on deposit in the trust account.

On July 29, 1986, McKinnis informed respondent that Judge Johnson was signing an order requiring that the funds be turned over to her client. McKinnis demanded that respondent send her...