In re Disciplinary Action against Brost, No. A08-1012.
| Decision Date | 31 March 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. A08-1012. |
| Citation | 763 N.W.2d 637 |
| Parties | In re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Linda A. BROST, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 182692. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
On June 17, 2008, the Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed a petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent Linda A. Brost committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline, namely, using the expired notary stamp of a deceased notary, altering the stamp's expiration date, and forging his signature to fraudulently notarize her own signature on a certificate of trust prepared for a client; submitting the fraudulent document to a bank; and failing to cooperate with the Director's investigation in a disciplinary investigation, in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.1(a), 8.1(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d), and Rule 25, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR).
On October 15, 2008, the Director filed an amended petition and a stipulation under which respondent withdrew her previously filed answer and unconditionally admitted the allegations of the amended petition. The parties jointly recommended that the appropriate discipline is a 9-month suspension from the practice of law, with reinstatement by petition and hearing under Rule 18, RLPR.
By order filed on October 31, 2008, we ordered the parties to show cause why respondent should not be disbarred for attempted misappropriation of client funds. The language in the stipulation and stipulated amended petition made it appear that respondent had admitted to attempting to convert the client's funds to her own use. On November 20, 2008, the Director filed a memorandum in response to the order to show cause, and on December 17, 2008, respondent did the same. The Director clarified the confusing stipulation; the Director indicates that respondent did not stipulate to an allegation that she intended to misappropriate the client's funds, and the Director does not believe there is sufficient evidence of such intent to support such a charge. In entering into the stipulation, the Director also considered the heavy burden an evidentiary hearing before a referee would have on a specific witness. Respondent maintains that she never intended to convert the client's funds, and put forth several mitigating circumstances surrounding her conduct.
We have independently reviewed the file. In determining the appropriate discipline, we consider four factors: "1) the nature of the misconduct, 2) the cumulative weight of the violations of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In Re Petition For Disciplinary Action v. Robert H. Aitken, A09-1066.
...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 In re Yang, 755 N.W.2d 733 (Minn.2008) (minimum of 6 months); In re Boyd, 430 N.W.2d 663, 666-67 (Minn.1988) (6 mont......
-
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Linda A. Brost, A13–2307.
...R. Prof. Conduct 8.1(a), 8.1(b),18.4(c) 2 and 8.4(d),3 and Rule 25, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR).4In re Brost, 763 N.W.2d 637, 638 (Minn.2009). Brost remains suspended. The Director now seeks disbarment for Brost's theft of $43,000, Brost's identity theft, and Brost's......
-
In re Olson, A15–0223.
...in this case. We also give some deference to the Director's decision to enter into a stipulation for discipline. See In re Brost, 763 N.W.2d 637, 638 (Minn.2009) (order). Nevertheless, based on the scope of respondent's misappropriation, his intent to misappropriate client funds, and the ot......
-
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Engel, A13–1497.
...proof. We give deference to the Director's evaluation of the risk of litigation and decision to enter into a stipulation. In re Brost, 763 N.W.2d 637, 638 (Minn.2009) (order); see also In re Clark, 848 N.W.2d 236, 236 (Minn.2014) (order) (highlighting that “[t]he Director has explained that......