In re Peterson, No. CX-00-2049|
| Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM. |
| Citation | 660 N.W.2d 419 |
| Parties | In re PETITION FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Brian J. PETERSON, an Attorney at Law of the State of Minnesota. , and In re Petition for Reinstatement of Brian J. Peterson, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 85625. (CX-03-221). |
| Decision Date | 02 May 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. CX-00-2049, No. CX-03-221.,No. CX-00-2049| |
660 N.W.2d 419
In re PETITION FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Brian J. PETERSON, an Attorney at Law of the State of Minnesota. (No. CX-00-2049), andIn re Petition for Reinstatement of Brian J. Peterson, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 85625. (CX-03-221)
Nos. CX-00-2049, CX-03-221.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
May 2, 2003.
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
This court indefinitely suspended respondent/petitioner Brian J. Peterson (petitioner) from the practice of law on February 1, 2001, with no right to petition for reinstatement for six months. In re Peterson, 620 N.W.2d 29 (Minn.2000) (No. CX-00-2049). On June 14, 2002, the Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed a second petition for disciplinary action alleging that petitioner filed an attorney's lien against a client's homestead using an altered waiver of the homestead exemption and handled client funds while suspended in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.8(j), 3.1, 3.4(b) and (c), 5.3(c), 8.1(a)(1), and 8.4(c) and (d), and Rule 26, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR).
On April 3, 2003, this court heard oral argument on the referee's findings, conclusions, and recommendation. On April 4, 2003, the court filed an order adopting the referee's findings, his conclusion that petitioner's conduct violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.8(j), 3.1, 3.4(b), 8.4(c) and 8.4(d), and his recommendation that petitioner remain suspended until at least February 1, 2003, with an opinion to follow. See In re Peterson, 658 N.W.2d 875, 875 (Minn.2003) (No. CX-00-2049). Because February 1, 2003, had already passed, the court also ordered that petitioner could petition for reinstatement immediately. Id.
In fact, on February 3, 2003, petitioner had filed a petition for reinstatement from his earlier suspension. Subsequent to the court's April 4 order, the parties entered into a stipulation in which they state that petitioner has complied with all conditions for reinstatement and jointly recommend that petitioner be reinstated to the practice of law without further hearing and that he be placed on supervised...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Askerooth, No. C6-02-318.
...it was abandoned. We have held that evidence discovered as a result of a violation of article I, section 10 must be excluded. Fort, 660 N.W.2d at 419; B.R.K., 658 N.W.2d at 578-79; E.D.J., 502 N.W.2d at 783. When property is abandoned, however, generally the owner no longer has a reasonable......
-
State Of Conn. v. Christopher Jenkins., No. 18077.
...stop must be justified by a reasonable articulable suspicion of other criminal activity.” (Emphasis added.) State v. Fort, supra, 660 N.W.2d at 419. 12 Despite this specific language, the majority dismisses the import of Brown v. State, supra, 182 P.3d 624, because the Alaska Court of Appea......
-
State v. Dissent, SC18077 Dissent
...stop must be justified by a reasonable articulable suspicion of other criminal activity.'' (Emphasis added.) State v. Fort, supra, 660 N.W.2d 419. 12. Despite this specific language, the majority dismisses the import of Brown v. State, supra, 182 P.3d 624, because the Alaska Court of Appeal......
-
State v. Sargent, A19-1554
...from adult passenger does not justify expansion to search for open containers and possession of controlled substances), and Fort , 660 N.W.2d at 419 (concluding that a stop for speeding and a cracked windshield did not justify expansion to search for controlled substances).9 Rule 6.03 allow......
-
State v. Askerooth, No. C6-02-318.
...it was abandoned. We have held that evidence discovered as a result of a violation of article I, section 10 must be excluded. Fort, 660 N.W.2d at 419; B.R.K., 658 N.W.2d at 578-79; E.D.J., 502 N.W.2d at 783. When property is abandoned, however, generally the owner no longer has a reasonable......
-
State Of Conn. v. Christopher Jenkins., No. 18077.
...stop must be justified by a reasonable articulable suspicion of other criminal activity.” (Emphasis added.) State v. Fort, supra, 660 N.W.2d at 419. 12 Despite this specific language, the majority dismisses the import of Brown v. State, supra, 182 P.3d 624, because the Alaska Court of Appea......
-
State v. Dissent, SC18077 Dissent
...stop must be justified by a reasonable articulable suspicion of other criminal activity.'' (Emphasis added.) State v. Fort, supra, 660 N.W.2d 419. 12. Despite this specific language, the majority dismisses the import of Brown v. State, supra, 182 P.3d 624, because the Alaska Court of Appeal......
-
State v. Sargent, A19-1554
...from adult passenger does not justify expansion to search for open containers and possession of controlled substances), and Fort , 660 N.W.2d at 419 (concluding that a stop for speeding and a cracked windshield did not justify expansion to search for controlled substances).9 Rule 6.03 allow......