X.Y., In re
Decision Date | 14 April 1995 |
Docket Number | No. C6-94-1504,C6-94-1504 |
Parties | In re Admonition issued to X.Y. |
Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
Attorney violated Minn.R.Prof.Conduct 1.16(d) and Lawyers Prof.Resp.Board Op. 13 by charging a client for the costs of copying the client's file after being discharged as the client's attorney, and is appropriately admonished.
Jack S. Nordby, Meshbesher & Spence, Ltd., Minneapolis, for appellant.
Marcia A. Johnson, Director, Lawyers Professional Responsibility Bd., Patrick R. Burns, Sr. Asst. Director, St. Paul, for respondent.
Heard, considered, and decided by the court en banc.
The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility issued an admonition to X.Y. on March 2, 1994. X.Y. demanded and was granted a hearing before a panel of the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board (LPRB), and the panel affirmed the admonition. We affirm the panel.
X.Y. was admitted to practice law in Minnesota on May 11, 1984. On June 29, 1991, client hired X.Y. to represent her in two personal injury actions and a retainer agreement was signed. In the course of X.Y.'s representation of the client, a file of approximately 1,200 pages developed. After X.Y. settled one of the cases, with the other still active, the client requested a reduction in the contingency fee set forth in the retainer agreement. When X.Y. refused, the client discharged him and hired a new attorney.
X.Y. asserts that he spoke with the client's new attorney about coming to X.Y.'s office to copy the file before transferring it and the new attorney agreed to do so, but this never occurred. On December 17, 1992, the client requested her file. X.Y. agreed she could have it, but said he wished to retain a copy and suggested they go to Kinko's to copy the file. The client declined. X.Y. further asserts that an effort to obtain guidance on the matter from the LPRB was unsuccessful.
X.Y. thereupon copied the file and personally delivered it to the new attorney's office on December 18, 1992. On October 22, 1993, in a letter to the client's attorney enclosing the settlement draft, X.Y. stated that his expenses for copying the client's file totaled $302.75 and, at least by implication, sought to charge her for these expenses. On that same day, the client filed a complaint with the Director's office claiming that X.Y. had improperly asserted a claim for copy costs when there was no written agreement permitting these charges. On October 25, 1993, the Director's office served a notice of investigation on X.Y., and on March 2, 1994, an admonition was issued. A panel of the LPRB affirmed the admonition on June 15, 1994. We affirm the panel.
Review in attorney discipline proceedings is guided by the clearly erroneous standard. In re Larsen, 459 N.W.2d 115, 116 (Minn.1990). Unless the findings in a disciplinary action are clearly erroneous, they will not be set aside. Id.; In re Ruhland, 442 N.W.2d 783, 785 (Minn.1989). We have not heretofore set forth the standard of appellate review in admonition appeals, 1 but since an admonition is a form of discipline, the clearly erroneous standard used in reviewing referee's findings is appropriate. See In re Appeal of Panel's Affirmance of Director of Professional Responsibility's Admonition in Panel No. 87-22, 425 N.W.2d 824 (Minn.1988).
Pursuant to Minn.R.Prof.Conduct 1.16(d), an attorney is required to "take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests * * *." Minn.R.Prof.Conduct 1.16(d). These steps include the surrendering of papers and property to which the client is entitled. Id. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Averill v. Cox
...at Law § 193 (1997) ; Sage Realty v. Proskauer Rose Goetz, 91 N.Y.2d 30, 666 N.Y.S.2d 985, 689 N.E.2d 879, 881 (1997) ; In re X.Y., 529 N.W.2d 688, 690 (Minn.1995). Our Rules of Professional Conduct support this approach. Rule 1.16(d) states: "Upon termination of representation, a lawyer sh......
-
Averill v. Cox
...7 AM. JUR. 2D Attorneys at Law § 193 (1997); Sage Realty v. Proskauer Rose Goetz, 689 N.E.2d 879, 881 (N.Y. 1997); In re X.Y., 529 N.W.2d 688, 690 (Minn. 1995). Our Rules of Professional Conduct support this approach. Rule 1.16(d) states: "Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall ......
-
Sherrel v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 20253–04.
...985, 689 N.E.2d 879, 882–883 (N.Y.App.Div.1997)); see also Averill v. Cox, 145 N.H. 328, 761 A.2d 1083, 1092 (N.H.2000); In re X.Y., 529 N.W.2d 688, 690 (Minn.1995). These courts have held that the creation of the case file is part of the services for which the client pays his attorney, and......
-
IN RE PANEL CASE NO. 17289
...a decision to issue an admonition by determining whether the decision was clearly erroneous. In re Admonition issued to X.Y., 529 N.W.2d 688, 689-90 (Minn.1995). The purpose of attorney discipline is to provide protection to the public. In re Disciplinary Action Against Walker, 461 N.W.2d 2......