In re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Scannell, A14–1930.
| Decision Date | 01 April 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. A14–1930.,A14–1930. |
| Parties | In re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Timothy Christopher SCANNELL, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 326525. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed a petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent Timothy Christopher Scannell has committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline, namely, committing two counts of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct and making derogatory statements on his blog about criminal defendants that he was currently prosecuting, in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 3.6(a), 8.4(b), and 8.4(d).
Respondent waived his rights under Rule 14, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR), unconditionally admitted the allegations in the petition, and with the Director recommended that the appropriate discipline is an indefinite suspension with no right to petition for reinstatement for 3 years.
Following receipt of the parties' stipulation for discipline, we issued an order directing the parties to file memoranda of law showing cause why respondent should not be subject to more severe discipline. Only the Director filed a memorandum in response to the order to show cause.
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 Timothy Christopher Scannell is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law, effective from the date of the filing of this order, with no right to petition for reinstatement for 3 years.
2. Respondent may petition for reinstatement pursuant to Rule 18(a)-(d), RLPR. Reinstatement is conditioned on successful completion of the professional responsibility portion of the state bar examination, satisfaction of continuing legal education requirements pursuant to Rule 18(e), RLPR, and proof of compliance with the terms of respondent's criminal probation.
3. Respondent shall comply with Rule 26, RLPR (requiring notice of suspension to clients, opposing counsel, and tribunals), and shall pay $900 in costs pursuant to Rule 24, RLPR.
/s/____________________
Alan C. Page
GILDEA, C.J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
LILLEHAUG, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Siders, A17-0514
...by Texas law, we imposed an indefinite suspension for a minimum of 3 years. Bohanek, No. A15-0462, Order at 1.In In re Scannell, 861 N.W.2d 678, 679 (Minn. 2015) (order), we also imposed a minimum 3-year indefinite suspension for a county attorney who pleaded guilty to two counts of fourth-......
-
In re Strunk, A19-0917
...asks us to accept the referee's recommended discipline, and turns to the discipline imposed in Lorentzen, Lichtenwalter , Siders , Scannell , Blashack , and Farley for support. See In re Lorentzen , 935 N.W.2d 435 (Minn. 2019) (order) (imposing an indefinite suspension with no right to peti......
-
Fort v. State, A14–1692.
...... also affirmed the denial of Fort's first petition for postconviction relief. Fort v. State (Fort ......