In re Petition For Disciplinary Action v. Lawrence Walter Ulanowski, A10–0819.

• Decision Date: 03 August 2011
• Docket Number: No. A10–0819.,A10–0819.
• Citation: 800 N.W.2d 785
• Parties: In re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Lawrence Walter ULANOWSKI, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 316015.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

800 N.W.2d 785

In re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Lawrence Walter ULANOWSKI, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 316015.

No. A10–0819.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Aug. 3, 2011.

Syllabus by the Court

Indefinite suspension from the practice of law with no right to petition for reinstatement for a minimum of one year is the appropriate sanction when a lawyer makes misrepresentations to the district court, submits frivolous claims, violates court rules, harasses opposing counsel, improperly withdraws from the representation of a client, improperly threatens criminal prosecution, fails to inform clients of a settlement offer, fails to timely return client materials, makes misrepresentations to the Director, and refuses to adequately cooperate in the Director's investigation.

Martin A. Cole, Director, Timothy M. Burke, Senior Assistant Director, Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility, St. Paul, MN, for petitioner.Kellen T. Fish, Minneapolis, MN, for respondent.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility petitions our court to take disciplinary action against Minnesota lawyer Lawrence Walter Ulanowski. The Director alleges several instances of misconduct occurring in multiple matters over a period of three years. The allegations include: making misrepresentations to the district court, filing frivolous claims, violating court rules, harassing opposing counsel, improperly withdrawing from the representation of a client, improperly threatening criminal prosecution, failing to inform clients of a settlement offer, failing to timely return client materials, making misrepresentations to the Director, and refusing to cooperate in the Director's investigation. We conclude that all of the referee's findings of fact and most of the referee's conclusions of law were not clearly erroneous. But we conclude that the referee's recommended discipline—suspension for a minimum of six months—is not sufficient to protect the public, protect the legal profession, and deter future misconduct. Therefore, we indefinitely suspend Lawrence Walter Ulanowski from the practice of law for a minimum of one year.

On March 30, 2010, the Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility petitioned our court to impose discipline on Minnesota lawyer Lawrence Walter Ulanowski. The Director alleged Ulanowski, a lawyer admitted to the Minnesota bar in December 2001, committed numerous violations of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct. We appointed a referee to make findings of fact and conclusions of law, and to recommend appropriate discipline.

After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the referee concluded that Ulanowski violated several Rules of Professional Conduct during his representation in five client matters, his personal marriage dissolution, and the Director's investigation. We will address the facts of these matters in turn.

K.H. Matter

Ulanowski was an acquaintance, friend, and lawyer for K.H. and E.H., a married couple. When K.H. and E.H. began marriage dissolution proceedings, Ulanowski initially represented E.H., the husband but was later disqualified from representation. Ulanowski subsequently sued K.H. pro se to compel her to sign a deed—a signature that Ulanowski unsuccessfully sought to obtain while he represented E.H. The verified complaint in this action stated that Ulanowski was “acting on behalf of all property owners involved” with the property at issue. This statement was false, because K.H. and her parents were owners of the property at issue, and they did not authorize Ulanowski to sue K.H. on their behalf. The referee concluded that when Ulanowski filed the complaint he knew his statement was false.

In support of his claim, Ulanowski submitted an affidavit from his mother, dated March 25, 2009, which stated that his mother had an ownership interest in part of the property at issue and that she authorized Ulanowski to act on her behalf. This claim was also false, because Ulanowski's mother had sold her property interest more than one year before the affidavit was submitted. Moreover, Ulanowski or someone in Ulanowski's office drafted the quitclaim deed that conveyed his mother's property interest to different owners, which deed was signed by his mother on October 16, 2007, and recorded on June 16, 2008. The referee concluded that Ulanowski knew or should have known that the claim in the affidavit was false. The referee also concluded that Ulanowski's action against K.H. was frivolous, because he had no property interest in the matter and therefore lacked standing.

While scheduling a hearing on the frivolous action against K.H., Ulanowski sent a letter notifying the district court that he had requested the hearing date be rescheduled and that he had “not had a response from opposing counsel.” But Ulanowski's office had received a letter from opposing counsel the day before. The referee concluded that Ulanowski knew or should have known that his statement to the court was false.

While litigating the K.H. matter, Ulanowski repeatedly questioned opposing counsel's intelligence by making the following statement, and others that were similarly demeaning: “For some reason something this simple cannot even be understood by you....” K.H.'s attorney testified that she found Ulanowski's correspondence to be “very unsettling.” K.H.'s attorney also received what she believed to be a physical threat from Ulanowski. She subsequently refused to talk on the telephone or sit in a room with Ulanowski because Ulanowski was “becoming increasingly confrontational, hostile,” and she believed Ulanowski “was personalizing disputes, personalizing the issues” of their clients. The referee found that certain communications between Ulanowski and K.H.'s attorney were “harassing and insulting” and had “no substantial purpose.”

J.I. Matter

J.I. retained Ulanowski in August 2008 for legal representation in a marital dissolution proceeding that included child custody issues. Ulanowski knew of the complexities of J.I.'s case, and Ulanowski also knew J.I. suffered from a mild traumatic brain injury that caused cognitive and memory issues. In a retainer agreement, J.I. agreed to provide a $2,000 retainer at the start of Ulanowski's representation and at least a $4,000 retainer four weeks before trial. In October 2008, Ulanowski requested that J.I. replenish the retainer to $3,000 immediately and to $5,000 four weeks before trial, citing the complexity of the case as a justification.¹ J.I. and his family made some of the payments. In early December, Ulanowski requested that J.I. pay the outstanding balance and replenish the retainer to $15,000. By December 12, 2008, J.I. and his family had paid Ulanowski more than $20,000 in legal fees, but J.I. still owed Ulanowski money.

On December 15, 2008, Ulanowski told J.I. he would withdraw from representation within three days unless J.I. paid another $4,000 by December 19, used J.I.'s parents' land as collateral for the remaining balance, and paid off the remaining balance due on legal fees by December 31. J.I. did not signal his agreement to these new terms, and on December 19, 20 days before J.I.'s trial, Ulanowski withdrew from representing J.I. J.I. went to trial pro se, and his ex-wife—represented by counsel—received all of the relief she requested. At the disciplinary hearing, Ulanowski claimed J.I. still owed him more than $10,000 in legal fees. The referee concluded Ulanowski's withdrawal from his representation of J.I. was improper.

J.N. Matter

An attorney in Ulanowski's office represented J.N. in a marital dissolution. This representation resulted in a fee dispute, which became personal between Ulanowski and J.N. J.N. allegedly made several defamatory statements about Ulanowski's conduct unrelated to the marital dissolution proceedings. In a letter sent to J.N.'s counsel in the fee dispute, Ulanowski said that “[i]f [J.N.] does not agree to pay me the $40,000.00 owed for legal fees and retract from all sources her statements about me and more specifically about my children, I will consult with counsel about pursuing criminal charges against [J.N.].” Ulanowski added that if he received no response he would “proceed forward on the criminal charges against” J.N. The referee concluded the statement was “made for no substantial purpose and was harassing and burdensome.”

V.S. Matter

Ulanowski represented V.S. and 11 other plaintiffs in an action to establish an easement. On June 4, 2009, the district court dismissed the action. The defendants moved the court to award costs. The court granted the motion, concluding that all five counts in the complaint were frivolous and lacked a legal and factual basis. The court sanctioned Ulanowski $10,859.50. The referee concluded that as of the date of the disciplinary hearing Ulanowski had paid only $85 of that sanction.

By letter, Ulanowski requested that the district court allow him to move to amend the complaint, move for reconsideration, or move for a rehearing. The court denied his request. A little over one month after making the request, Ulanowski filed a notice to remove the judge, citing the rules of criminal procedure, juvenile protective procedure, and juvenile procedure. In addition to citing these inapplicable rules, the notice filed by Ulanowski did not abide by the applicable rules because the notice was untimely and did not provide factual allegations to support a claim that the judge was biased. Ulanowski admitted that he filed the notice to remove knowing it did not comply with the court rules, but nevertheless, he did so with the intent that the judge would voluntarily recuse.

V.S. testified at the disciplinary hearing that Ulanowski failed to notify him of a settlement offer and did not return his file in a timely manner. Before the final hearing on the matter, V.S. made a request that Ulanowski return all original documents to him at the hearing....