In re Peterson, CX-00-2049|

• Decision Date: 02 May 2003
• Docket Number: No. CX-00-2049, No. CX-03-221.,No. CX-00-2049|,CX-00-2049|
• 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).
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

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), and

In 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). The court appointed a referee to conduct a hearing on the matters raised in the June 14, 2002, petition. In findings of fact, conclusions and recommendation as to discipline filed November 1, 2002, the referee found that petitioner had engaged in the alleged misconduct and recommended that his existing suspension continue until at least February 1, 2003.

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 probation for two years subject to the following conditions:

a. Petitioner shall cooperate fully with the Director's Office in its efforts to monitor compliance with this probation and promptly respond to the Director's correspondence by the due date. Petitioner shall cooperate with the Director's investigation of any allegations of unprofessional conduct which may come to the Director's attention. Upon the Director's request, petitioner shall provide authorization for release of information and documentation to verify compliance with the terms of this probation.

b. Petitioner shall abide by the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC).

c. Petitioner shall be supervised by a licensed Minnesota attorney, appointed by the Director to monitor compliance with the terms of this probation. Until a supervisor has signed a consent to supervise, petitioner shall on the first day of each month provide the Director with the documents and information described in paragraph d. below. Petitioner shall make active client files

...