Howe v. Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of North Dakota
2015 ND 182
| N.D. | 2015Background
- Henry H. Howe, admitted 1973, had prior suspensions (90 days in 1977; 120 days in 2001) and was suspended effective April 10, 2014 for violations of N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, 1.3, and 1.4. He has not been licensed since that suspension.
- Howe filed a petition for reinstatement on February 5, 2015; a Disciplinary Board hearing panel held a hearing and issued findings and recommendations on May 27, 2015.
- The panel found Howe fit and competent to practice but not fully compliant with prior disciplinary orders and rules; it nevertheless recommended conditional reinstatement given contemporaneous extraordinary events and vacatur of an interim suspension.
- The panel found clear and convincing evidence Howe violated N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 8.2(a) by publishing statements accusing officials of a "witch hunt," and recommended a reprimand for that misconduct.
- The panel expressed concerns about Howe’s law-practice management (failure to produce billing records) and recommended multiple reinstatement conditions, including evaluation under the Lawyer Assistance Program, practice restrictions (no immigration work), practice-management training, a monitor, timekeeping/billing/IOLTA/calendaring controls, and payment of costs.
- The Supreme Court adopted the panel report, reprimanded Howe, reinstated him immediately subject to the panel’s conditions, ordered payment of costs ($5,274.90), and allowed future motions to lift conditions when appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Howe demonstrated rehabilitation and fitness for reinstatement after a suspension over six months | Howe: asserted fitness and competence to resume practice and waived objection period to expedite decision | Disciplinary Board: acknowledged fitness but noted noncompliance with prior orders and recommended conditions to protect the public | Court: adopted panel view — reinstated Howe conditionally, finding requisite fitness but imposed safeguards |
| Whether Howe violated professional conduct by public accusations against judges/officials (Prof. Conduct 8.2(a)) | Howe: framed statements as commentary about misconduct and part of defense against charges | Disciplinary Board: proved statements were false/reckless and undermined judicial integrity | Court: found violation and imposed a reprimand |
| Whether practice-management deficiencies warranted conditions and monitoring | Howe: argued for reinstatement despite gaps in records, citing extraordinary circumstances | Disciplinary Board: pointed to missing billing records and trustee testimony showing poor management; recommended training and monitoring | Court: imposed conditions requiring management training, a monitor, and attestations of compliance |
| Whether additional practice restrictions were justified (e.g., immigration work) | Howe: sought full return to practice (waived procedural objections) | Disciplinary Board: recommended limiting immigration representation given prior issues and risks | Court: adopted limitation — Howe barred from advising/representing on immigration matters as a condition of reinstatement |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Bd. v. Howe, 843 N.W.2d 325 (N.D. 2014) (prior disciplinary suspension for failures in competence, diligence, and communication)
- Disciplinary Bd. v. Howe, 842 N.W.2d 646 (N.D. 2014) (interim suspension proceedings and related procedural matters)
- Disciplinary Bd. v. Howe, 847 N.W.2d 126 (N.D. 2014) (vacatur/related decisions addressing interim suspension and circumstances surrounding disciplinary proceedings)