In re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Laver
| Decision Date | 25 January 2023 |
| Docket Number | A21-1532 |
| Parties | In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Larry John Laver, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0317731. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
Original Jurisdiction Office of Appellate Courts
Susan M. Humiston, Director, Karin K. Ciano, Managing Attorney Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility, Saint Paul Minnesota, for petitioner.
Larry John Laver, Woodbury, Minnesota, pro se.
An indefinite suspension with no right to petition for reinstatement for 8 months is the appropriate discipline for an attorney who committed wide-ranging misconduct, including misrepresentations to clients and courts, client neglect disobedience of court orders, collection of improper fees, advising a client despite a conflict of interest, engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and failing to cooperate in multiple disciplinary investigations.
Suspended.
The sole issue before us is the appropriate discipline to impose on respondent Larry Laver for his wide-ranging misconduct. The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed a petition and a supplementary petition for disciplinary action against Laver alleging misconduct in five client matters. Following a hearing, a referee concluded that Laver violated 19 different rules of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, 9 of them more than once, and 1 rule of the Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR). Laver's misconduct involved misrepresentations to clients, courts, and disciplinary investigators, client neglect, disobedience of court orders, collection of improper fees, advising a client despite a conflict of interest, engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and failing to cooperate in multiple disciplinary investigations. The referee also found multiple aggravating factors and no mitigating factors. We conclude that the appropriate discipline is an indefinite suspension with no right to petition for reinstatement for 8 months.
Larry Laver was admitted to practice law in Minnesota on May 23 2002. Laver has received three prior admonitions: in 2005 for a violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 4.2 (); in 2006 for a violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(d) (); and in 2015 for a violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1 (competence), 1.4(b) (communication with clients), and 1.15(c)(1) ().
The Director's petitions assert that Laver committed misconduct in five client matters over the course of more than 7 years. We summarize the referee's findings and conclusions-which are deemed conclusive[1]-regarding each of these matters in turn.
In October 2014, J.C. retained Laver to represent her in a child custody matter. The fee agreement referred to J.C.'s retainer as "non-refundable."
Separate from the child custody matter, J.C. brought a proceeding for an order for protection (OFP) on behalf of her daughter in 2015. A child advocacy organization conducted a video-recorded interview of J.C.'s daughter. J.C. attempted to obtain a tape of the interview but was told that only her attorney could do so.
J.C. retained Laver to represent her in connection with the OFP in the fall of 2015. J.C. directed Laver to obtain the tape of the interview, and Laver told J.C. that he would do so. But despite repeated follow-up from J.C. throughout November and December 2015, Laver did not obtain the tape. Despite not acquiring the tape, Laver listed the video as an exhibit for the OFP trial and identified as potential witnesses the custodian of the taped interview and an expert witness whose testimony would include discussing that interview.
The day before the OFP trial, J.C. called the child advocacy organization and learned that Laver still had not requested the video. That evening, after a disagreement about whether to proceed to trial, Laver and J.C. agreed to end the representation. After the representation ended, J.C. asked Laver for her complete file. Laver provided J.C. with an incomplete file, which was notably missing the expert witness's report.[2]
In May 2019, Laver sued J.C. for unpaid legal fees. While the case was pending in district court, Laver offered to settle his claim against J.C. if she withdrew her ethics complaint against him and did not make any future ethics complaints against him. J.C. refused.
J.C.'s ethics complaint was investigated by a District Ethics Committee (DEC). In his written response to the DEC, Laver claimed that he "never promised [he] would obtain this video" and that he was "not even aware of this video until after [he] was terminated from the case," despite having listed the video as a trial exhibit.
The referee concluded that Laver's misconduct in the J.C. matter violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 1.5(b)(3) (), 1.15(c)(4) (), 1.16(d) (requiring attorney to return client papers and property upon termination of representation), 1.16(e)(2) (), 4.1 (prohibiting knowingly false statements when representing a client), 8.1(a) (), 8.4(c) (), and 8.4(d).
In 2018, Laver represented E.B., the father, in a child support matter. E.B.'s income was disputed by the parties, and thus evidence of his income was necessary to the determination of child support. A hearing to determine child support was set for December 12, 2018.
In November 2018, mother's attorney e-mailed Laver and asked him for proof of E.B.'s income to discuss a potential settlement. Laver responded that E.B. was in the process of applying for public assistance. Mother's attorney asked Laver for E.B.'s application for public assistance, which Laver refused to provide. Mother's attorney then served Laver with a formal discovery request for the application.
When the case was called on December 12, 2018, E.B. was in the courtroom, but Laver was not. Laver did not tell E.B. that he was not going to appear. The court read an e-mail that Laver had sent earlier that same day in which he stated that he did not believe the hearing was necessary because the parties were working toward a settlement. However, no work toward settlement had occurred because Laver had not provided E.B.'s income information to mother's attorney. When questioned by the court, E.B. became emotional and told the court that he had provided his income information to Laver.
The court recessed the case after receiving a call from Laver stating that he was 45 minutes away. When Laver arrived, he did not have a computer with him or any documentation of E.B.'s income, but E.B. claimed that he had the information on his cell phone. Therefore, the court recessed again to allow E.B. to share the income information on his phone with all counsel.
When the case was recalled 31/2 hours after it was first called, the court imputed income to E.B. that exceeded the income documented, which the referee found "eliminated the possibility of a better outcome for [E.B.]." Mother's attorney later moved for attorney fees for the delay in the hearing, and the court awarded mother $600 in attorney fees, which Laver paid in 2021.
The referee concluded that Laver's misconduct in the E.B. matter violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3, 1.4(a)(3) (requiring attorney to keep client informed about the status of a case), 3.2 (requiring reasonable efforts to expedite litigation), 3.3(a)(1) (), 3.4(c) (), 4.1, and 8.4(c).
Laver represented V.C., the father, in a series of disputes with the mother of V.C.'s children. On two occasions, Laver submitted an affidavit supporting motions for attorney fees. In both affidavits, Laver stated that he had reviewed the "original time records" and verified the work "performed for the benefit of the client." However, for the first motion, Laver significantly inflated the number of hours worked due to clerical errors in the attached time spreadsheet. Opposing counsel contacted Laver to point out the errors; Laver acknowledged the errors but refused to correct them. For the second motion, Laver included a time entry for 2 hours of work for a pretrial hearing, even though that hearing had not yet occurred.
Additionally, for both motions, Laver billed 0.3 hours (18 minutes) on each of the e-mails relating to the matter, even though many of those e-mails would not have required 18 minutes of time. Laver admitted before the referee that he did not track time spent on each e-mail but attributed 18 minutes to each e-mail because a study done by Boeing in the 1990s found that most e-mails take 21 minutes of time.
Thus, because there were no original time records regarding the e-mails, and because Laver's submissions contained inaccurate charges for time not actually performing work for the client, the referee found that the statements in the affidavits were knowingly false.
Laver also committed withdrawal-related misconduct in the V.C matter. Laver initially withdrew from V.C.'s case on December 4, 2019, but his notice of...
To continue reading
Request your trial