Bolinske v. Disciplinary Bd. of the Supreme Court of N.D. (In Re Bolinske), 908 N.W.2d 462

Robert V. Bolinske, Sr., a lawyer who campaigned for a North Dakota Supreme Court seat in 2016, issued a press release alleging certain judges hid court records and misfiled a petition for a supervisory writ.
A disciplinary complaint charged Bolinske with violating N.D. Rules of Professional Conduct (8.2(a)) and the North Dakota Code of Judicial Conduct (Rule 4.3(A)(1)).
Bolinske appeared before Inquiry Committee West in March 2017, submitted documentary evidence, and denied unethical conduct.
The Inquiry Committee concluded Bolinske made allegations knowingly or with reckless disregard for their truth and issued an admonition, explaining its reasons in writing.
Bolinske appealed to the Disciplinary Board, which affirmed the admonition in a written decision; he then petitioned this Court for leave to appeal, arguing procedural due process violations.
The Supreme Court limited review to whether the Disciplinary Board acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably in affirming the admonition and affirmed the Board.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bolinske was denied procedural due process by the Board's decision lacking factual analysis and by not being allowed to attend/argue before the Board	Bolinske: Board’s brief written decision failed to state facts or analysis; he was denied the opportunity to appear before the Board, depriving him of due process	Disciplinary Board: Rules do not grant a right to appear before the Board in informal proceedings; Bolinske received required notice, opportunity to be heard before the inquiry committee, written dispositions, and ability to petition this Court	Court: No due process violation; procedures under N.D.R. Lawyer Discipl. 3.1 were followed and afforded adequate opportunity to be heard

Toth v. Disciplinary Bd., 562 N.W.2d 744 (1997) (arbitrary and capricious standard governs initial decision to grant leave to appeal disciplinary board decisions)
Gerber v. Disciplinary Bd., 868 N.W.2d 861 (2015) (attorneys in disciplinary proceedings are entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard)
In re Disciplinary Action Against Overboe, 844 N.W.2d 851 (2014) (procedural due process standards in attorney discipline)
N.D. Comm’n on Medical Competency v. Racek, 527 N.W.2d 262 (1995) (due process has modest application at investigative stage)
In re Application of Lamb, 539 N.W.2d 865 (1995) (due process does not require a full-dress adversary proceeding)