In re Disciplinary Action against Arbeiter
| Decision Date | 28 April 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. A09-663.,A09-663. |
| Citation | 764 N.W.2d 814 |
| Parties | In re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Sharon Elizabeth ARBEITER, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 209648. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility has filed a petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent Sharon Elizabeth Arbeiter committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline, namely, forging a signature on an authorization for release of medical records and obtaining records pursuant to the authorization, in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(c) and (d). Respondent admits the allegations of the petition and waives her procedural rights under Rule 14, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR). Respondent and the Director jointly recommend that the appropriate discipline is a public reprimand.
In cases of forgery, we typically impose some period of suspension from the practice of law. See, e.g., In re Yang, 755 N.W.2d 733, 734 (Minn.2008) (). In support of the recommended discipline, the Director notes that upon receiving records pursuant to the forged authorization, respondent promptly informed her supervisor of her conduct, which may not otherwise have been discovered. In addition, respondent self-reported her misconduct to the Director. Finally, the Director notes that although admitted to practice law, respondent has never been engaged in the practice of law and the misconduct to which respondent admits occurred while respondent was working as a paralegal.
The court has independently reviewed the file and approves the jointly recommended disposition.
Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent Sharon Elizabeth Arbeiter is publicly reprimanded. Respondent shall pay $900 in costs pursuant to Rule 24, RLPR.
BY THE COURT:
/s/Alan C. Page
Associate Justice
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In Re Petition For Disciplinary Action v. Robert H. Aitken, A09-1066.
... 787 N.W.2d 152 ... In re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Robert H. AITKEN, III, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 301711 ... No. A09-1066. Supreme Court of Minnesota. July 29, 2010. 787 N.W.2d 153 ... We “typically impose some period of suspension from the practice of law” in “cases of forgery.” ... In re Arbeiter, 764 N.W.2d 814, 814 (Minn.2009); ... see also ... In re Brost, 763 N.W.2d 637 (Minn.2009) (minimum of 9 months); ... In re Yang, 755 ... ...
-
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Susanne Marie Glasser
...charges.” Thus, although self-reporting is a mitigating factor, self-reporting did not occur in this case. See, e.g., In re Arbeiter, 764 N.W.2d 814, 814 (Minn.2009). In addition, because “an attorney's lack of disciplinary history is not a mitigating factor but is instead the absence of an......
-
In re Eichhorn-Hicks
...release form and obtaining the records thereby is a violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(c) and (d). See In re Arbeiter , 764 N.W.2d 814, 814–15 (Minn. 2009) (order). Unlike in Arbeiter , Eichhorn-Hicks did not actually obtain the medical records because jail personnel refused to honor t......