In re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Swanson, A14–1589.

Decision Date10 March 2015
Docket NumberNo. A14–1589.,A14–1589.
PartiesIn re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Richard Lee SWANSON, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 173423.
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court
ORDER

The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility has filed a petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent Richard Lee Swanson committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline, namely: with respect to four client matters, failing to adequately communicate with clients, failing to diligently pursue client cases, failing to appear for hearings, failing to obtain the consent of one client to the involvement of substitute counsel, making a false statement to one client, failing to properly refund the unearned portion of clients' retainers, and failing to provide a copy of one client's file; and committing trust account violations by failing to maintain proper trust account books and records, failing to promptly withdraw earned fees from a trust account, commingling earned fees with client funds, and failing to deposit advance attorney fees payments and an advance filing fee payment in trust, in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a)(3) and (4), 1.5(b), 1.6(a), 1.15, 1.16(d), 4.1, and 8.4(b), (c), and (d).

Respondent waives his procedural rights under Rule 14, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR), withdraws his previously filed answer, and unconditionally admits the allegations in the petition. The parties jointly recommend that the appropriate discipline is a 90–day suspension and 2 years of supervised probation. In their stipulation, the parties indicate that respondent presented evidence of several mitigating factors to the Director.

The court has independently reviewed the file and approves the recommended disposition.

Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondent Richard Lee Swanson is suspended from the practice of law for a minimum of 90 days, effective 14 days from the date of the filing of this order.

2. Respondent shall comply with Rule 26, RLPR (requiring notice of suspension to clients, opposing counsel, and tribunals).

3. Respondent shall pay $900 in costs pursuant to Rule 24, RLPR.

4. Respondent shall be eligible for reinstatement to the practice of law following the expiration of the suspension period provided that, not less than 15 days before the end of the suspension period, respondent files with the Clerk of Appellate Courts and serves upon the Director an affidavit establishing that he is current in continuing legal education requirements, has complied with Rules 24 and 26, RLPR, and has complied with any other conditions for reinstatement imposed by the court.

5. Within 1 year of the date of the filing of this order, respondent shall file with the Clerk of Appellate Courts and serve upon the Director proof of successful completion of the professional responsibility portion of the state bar examination. Failure to timely file the required documentation shall result in automatic re-suspension, as provided in Rule 18(e)(3), RLPR.

6. Upon reinstatement to the practice of law, respondent shall be subject to probation for 2 years, subject to the following conditions:

(a) Respondent shall cooperate fully with the Director's Office in its efforts to monitor compliance with this probation. Respondent shall promptly respond to the Director's correspondence by its due date. Respondent shall provide the Director with a current mailing address and shall immediately notify the Director of any change of address. Respondent shall cooperate with the Director's investigation of any allegations of unprofessional conduct that may come to the Director's attention. Upon the Director's request, respondent shall provide authorization for release of information and documentation to verify respondent's compliance with the terms of this probation;
(b) Respondent shall abide by the
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Siegle v. Karst
    • United States
    • Minnesota Court of Appeals
    • 18 Junio 2018
    ...mishandling client funds, failing to appear for hearings, and failing to communicate with clients. In re Disciplinary Action against Swanson, 860 N.W.2d 677-678 (Minn. 2015). The supreme court conditionally reinstated Swanson on June 18, 2015, provided that he complete "the professional res......
  • In re Swanson, A14–1589.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • 21 Marzo 2016

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