Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court v. Overboe, 844 N.W.2d 851

Overboe, admitted to the North Dakota Bar in 1972, faced multiple disciplinary petitions alleging sexual misconduct, conflicts of interest, misrepresentation, and unauthorized practice.
The Court placed Overboe under interim suspension in 2006 due to serious misconduct and threats of public harm arising from sexual assault charges and related allegations.
Four disciplinary petitions were consolidated for hearing in 2013, covering acts from 1990s through 2006, including sexual contact with clients and improper financial dealings with clients and third parties.
A Hearing Panel found violations of multiple N.D.R. Prof. Conduct provisions (conflicts of interest, prohibited transactions, truthfulness, misconduct) and N.D.R. Lawyer Discipl. 1.2(A)(2) and (3), and recommended disbarment and costs ($4,134.41).
This Court conducted de novo review, affirmed most findings, rejected one alleged violation (1.8(a)), and ultimately disbarred Overboe effective immediately, imposing the stated costs.
Overboe was held liable for disciplinary violations across four files, including sexual misconduct with clients, improper handling of a power of attorney and real property transfers, and attempting to garnish funds while suspended.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the panel’s findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence	Overboe argues minimal merit to charges; panel erred in credibility	Overboe contends memory and witnesses’ availability were prejudicial due to delays	Yes; clear and convincing evidence supports violations
Whether due process was violated by procedural delay	Disciplinary delays prejudiced defense and memory	Delay alone not presumptively fatal; must show grave injustice	No; delay did not destroy fundamental fairness
Whether the conduct violated conflict-of-interest and prohibited-transaction rules	Multiple transactions with clients and related persons breached 1.7, 1.8, and 8.4	Some transactions did not involve direct lawyer-client dealings; 1.8(a)/(c) not violated	Violations established under 1.7(a), 1.8(j), 8.4(b); 1.8(a) not proven
Whether the unauthorized practice or related conduct supports discipline	Garnishment actions while suspended violated 5.5, 4.1, 5.3 and related rules	Secretary’s actions were not properly supervised; responsibility limited	Yes; violations of 5.5, 4.1, 5.3, 8.4(c) and Lawyer Discipl. 1.2(A)(3)
Appropriateness of disbarment and costs	Disbarment warranted given serious misconduct and aggravating factors	Argues limited sanction appropriate but presents no viable alternative	Disbarment affirmed; costs imposed

In re Discipl. Action Against McDonald, 609 N.W.2d 418 (ND 2000) (de novo review; clear and convincing burden; defer to panel on credibility)
In re Discipl. Action Against Lee, 835 N.W.2d 836 (ND 2013) (deference to hearing panel on conflicting evidence; credibility disposition)
In re Discipl. Action Against Dvorak, 580 N.W.2d 586 (ND 1998) (due process; delay not per se a constitutional infirmity)
In re Finstad, 2013 ND 21 (ND 2013) (distinction between inability to defend and incapacity to practice; 5.1(B) vs 5.1(C))
In re Discipl. Action Against Wireman, 367 N.E.2d 1368 (Ind. 1977) (illustrates grave issues of due process and fairness in disciplinary actions)