Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State v. Rozan
2011 ND 71
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Rozan, admitted in Texas (1970) and suspended since 2010, was admitted pro hac vice in North Dakota in 2008.
- Praus paid Rozan $39,000 in advance for divorce representation; funds included $4,000 for a psychiatrist and $5,000 paid to a referring attorney.
- A final divorce settlement was reached; Praus appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court.
- Clerk notified Rozan to pay 2009–2010 pro hac vice fees and that he was barred from further appearances due to suspension.
- Rozan failed to respond to the disciplinary petition; the Hearing Panel found multiple rule violations based on the petition and default.
- Court adopted the Hearing Panel’s factual findings and concluded ethical violations, but limited sanctions to disbarment from practice in North Dakota pending further order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Rozan violate competence and diligence rules? | Rozan failed to exercise reasonable diligence and competence. | Rozan did not respond; no argument presented due to default. | Yes; violations of 1.1 and 1.3 proven. |
| Did Rozan violate communication rules? | Failing to inform Praus about medical condition, property disposition, and licensure issues. | Default; no defense offered. | Yes; violations of 1.4(a) and (b) proven. |
| Did Rozan violate fee-related rules (1.5)? | Unreasonable and mischaracterized fees and improper recoveries. | Default; no counterpoint offered. | Yes; violations of 1.5(a) and (b) proven. |
| Did Rozan violate safekeeping property rules (1.15)? | Unearned fees not properly refunded or accounted for. | Default; no defense offered. | Yes; violations of 1.15(b), (c), and (h) proven. |
| Did Rozan violate unauthorized practice and advertising rules (5.5, 7.2)? | Practicing without proper authority; improper referrals. | Default; no defense offered. | Yes; violations of 5.5 and 7.2(d) proven. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ranta v. McCarney, 391 N.W.2d 161 (N.D. 1986) (unearned fees/refund considerations in trust contexts)
- Karlsen, 2008 ND 235 (N.D. 2008) (need for clear findings on fee deposits and trust accounting)
- Madlom, 2004 ND 206 (N.D. 2004) (nonrefundable fees and duty to refund when representation ends)
- Richmond v. Nodland, 501 N.W.2d 759 (N.D. 1993) (retainer and trust-account considerations in fee disputes)
- Disciplinary Board v. Wolff, see 2010 ND 175 (N.D. 2010) (disciplinary reasoning on multiple rule violations and defaults)