In re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Scannell, No. A14–1930.

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota (US)
Writing for the CourtAlan C. Page Associate Justice
Citation861 N.W.2d 678 (Mem)
PartiesIn re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Timothy Christopher SCANNELL, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 326525.
Docket NumberNo. A14–1930.
Decision Date01 April 2015

861 N.W.2d 678 (Mem)

In re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Timothy Christopher SCANNELL, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 326525.

No. A14–1930.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

April 1, 2015.


ORDER

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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • In re Strunk, A19-0917
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • July 1, 2020
    ...suspension with no right to petition for reinstatement for 2 years for soliciting a minor to engage in prostitution); In re Scannell , 861 N.W.2d 678 (Minn. 2015) (order) (imposing an indefinite suspension with no right to petition for reinstatement for 3 years for committing two counts of ......
  • In re Siders, A17-0514
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • October 27, 2017
    ...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-......
  • Fort v. State, No. A14–1692.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • April 1, 2015
    ...(Minn.2009) ; Schleicher, 718 N.W.2d at 446. Because Fort received the assistance of counsel during his direct appeal, neither the United 861 N.W.2d 678States Constitution nor the Minnesota Constitution entitled him to counsel during his first postconviction proceeding. Consequently, Fort's......
3 cases
  • In re Strunk, A19-0917
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • July 1, 2020
    ...suspension with no right to petition for reinstatement for 2 years for soliciting a minor to engage in prostitution); In re Scannell , 861 N.W.2d 678 (Minn. 2015) (order) (imposing an indefinite suspension with no right to petition for reinstatement for 3 years for committing two counts of ......
  • In re Siders, A17-0514
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • October 27, 2017
    ...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-......
  • Fort v. State, No. A14–1692.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • April 1, 2015
    ...(Minn.2009) ; Schleicher, 718 N.W.2d at 446. Because Fort received the assistance of counsel during his direct appeal, neither the United 861 N.W.2d 678States Constitution nor the Minnesota Constitution entitled him to counsel during his first postconviction proceeding. Consequently, Fort's......

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