In re Peterson, No. CX-00-2049|

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota (US)
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM.
Citation660 N.W.2d 419
PartiesIn 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 Date02 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), 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).

660 N.W.2d 420
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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 practice notes
  • State v. Askerooth, No. C6-02-318.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • 17 Giugno 2004
    ...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.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 7 Settembre 2010
    ...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
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 7 Settembre 2010
    ...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
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • 29 Dicembre 2021
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
28 cases
  • State v. Askerooth, No. C6-02-318.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • 17 Giugno 2004
    ...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.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 7 Settembre 2010
    ...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
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 7 Settembre 2010
    ...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
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • 29 Dicembre 2021
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT