Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court v. Hann
819 N.W.2d 498
| N.D. | 2012Background
- Hann, a North Dakota attorney admitted in 2005, faced discipline in three matters before a hearing panel.
- The Disciplinary Board alleged violations across Zastoupil, Munro, and Kuntz representations.
- In Zastoupil, Hann collected a $4,000 retainer that was not placed in a client trust account and was not refunded despite incomplete services.
- In Munro, Hann filed affidavits asserting Munro’s status as defendant with custody, which the panel found to be knowingly false statements.
- In Kuntz, Hann allegedly advised hiding or disposing of $36,000, failed to disclose it, and did not correct the financial affidavit.
- The court reviewed the panel’s findings de novo and imposed a six-month-and-one-day suspension and $7,010.76 in costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fee nonrefundable retainers in Zastoupil matter | Disciplinary Board argues Hann violated 1.5, 1.15, and 1.16. | Hann maintains nonrefundable retainers were lawful and not required to be trust funds. | Yes, Hann violated 1.5(a), 1.15(a)/(c), and 1.16(e). |
| Truthful candor to tribunal in Munro affidavits | Disciplinary Board asserts Hann knowingly submitted false custody assertions. | Hann argues the statements were not knowingly false and not material. | Yes, Hann violated 3.3(a)(1)/(3) and 8.4(c). |
| Disclosures of $36,000 in Kuntz matter | Disciplinary Board contends Hann knew of the funds and failed to disclose/correct. | Hann claims she did not learn of the funds in time and had no obligation to correct. | Yes, Hann violated 8.4(c) for failure to disclose/correct the financial affidavit. |
| Appropriate sanction for the misconduct | Disciplinary Board recommended one-year suspension plus costs. | Hann argues for lesser discipline or dismissal. | Six months and one day suspension with costs of $7,010.76. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Disciplinary Action Against Dyer, 2012 ND 118 (2012) (clear and convincing standard for disciplinary actions; weight to findings)
- In re Disciplinary Action Against Kirschner, 2011 ND 8 (2011) (de novo review; disciplinary standard)
- Richmond v. Nodland, 501 N.W.2d 759 (N.D. 1993) (nonrefundable retainers analyzed; limitations in disciplinary context)
- Rozan, 2011 ND 71 (2011) (discussion of 1.16(e) and nonrefundable fees; disciplinary insights)
- In re Karlsen, 2008 ND 235 (2008) (misrepresentation; diligence in termination and refunds)
- Disciplinary Board v. Madlom, 2004 ND 206 (2004) (nonrefundable fee issues; refund obligation)
- Stensland, 2011 ND 110 (2011) (standards for judging sanctions)
- Johnson, 2007 ND 203 (2007) (candor duties; knowledge standard)