In re Disciplinary Action Against Coleman, 793 N.W.2d 296

Coleman was charged with multiple violations of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct and faced discipline.
The Director filed a petition for discipline alleging failure to act with diligence, communicate with clients, conflicts of interest, improper termination of representation, and conduct prejudicial to justice.
Two client matters, S.A. and M.M., underpin the alleged misconduct and were presented at a referee hearing.
The referee found violations including conflicts of interest in S.A./E.M. representation, failure to inform S.A. of a court order, and deficient withdrawal from M.M.
Coleman had a long disciplinary history, with prior admonitions, a 2004 public reprimand and probation, and a 2007 probation stipulation.
After a hearing, the referee recommended a six-month suspension and two years of supervised probation; the Supreme Court adopted the discipline with some modifications.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Amendment of petition proper?	Director asserts referee correctly allowed amendment.	Coleman contends amendment without panel chair approval violated RLPR Rule 10(e).	Amendment not an abuse of discretion; minimal significance and no prejudice to Coleman.
Validity of service on Coleman?	Director properly served; Coleman had actual notice.	Service at residence was improper because defendant did not reside there.	Service substantially complied; denial of motion to dismiss reversed.
Quash subpoenas and admit deposition?	Need for testimony outweighs hardship.	Subpoena would impose undue hardship and testimony was duplicative.	Referee did not abuse discretion; deposition properly admitted.
Conflict of interest in S.A./E.M. matter?	Conflict anticipated; dual representation inherently risky.	Consent obtained from both clients after separate counsel; waivers valid.	There existed a material and directly adverse conflict; Rule 1.7 violated.
Termination of representation in M.M. matter?	Coleman violated notice and court procedures governing withdrawal.	Oral withdrawal may suffice.	Violations of Rule 1.16, 1.16(c), and 3.4 established; improper termination prejudiced client.

In re Varriano, 755 N.W.2d 282 (Minn. 2008) (clear-and-convincing standard for attorney discipline; high probability needed)
In re Houge, 764 N.W.2d 328 (Minn. 2009) (discipline standards and factors for misconduct)
In re Gillard, 271 N.W.2d 785 (Minn. 1978) (clear standard for misconduct review)