In re Disciplinary Action Against Paul
809 N.W.2d 693
Minn.2012Background
- Respondent William D. Paul was admitted to practice in Minnesota in 1985 and has a long disciplinary history including admonitions, a reprimand, and probation.
- OLPR filed a petition for disciplinary action in 2009; a referee found misconduct and recommended 30-day suspension plus 2 years of probation.
- A supplementary petition was filed in 2010–2011 alleging additional misconduct in three client matters; the referee recommended indefinite suspension for at least six months.
- The referee concluded multiple rule violations: 3.2, 8.1(b), and RLPR Rule 25 in the initial petition; additional findings included 1.1, 1.3, 8.4(c), 8.4(d) and failure to cooperate in the supplementary petition.
- The Court held the notarization finding in the R.V. matter was in error, but otherwise affirmed most findings and sanctions, and ultimately imposed indefinite suspension with a minimum of four months, plus notice and costs requirements.
- Paul was ordered to comply with Rule 26 RLPR, pay $900 in costs, and follow reinstatement procedures if sought.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Paul was entitled to a panel hearing as a matter of right. | Director argues panel hearing not a right, permitted but not required. | Paul contends a panel hearing is his right unless specifically excluded. | Panel hearing not required by rules; supplementary petition properly authorized. |
| Whether Paul's failure to attend the J.F. child support hearing violated ethical duties (1.1, 1.3). | Director: failure to attend showed incompetence and lack of diligence. | Paul: miscommunication and reliance on paralegal; no prejudice to J.F. | Referee’s and court findings upholding violation of 1.1 and 1.3 were not clearly erroneous. |
| Whether Paul procured or participated in an improper notarization in the R.V. matter (8.4(c)). | Director alleged improper notarization via pre-signed pages. | Paul testified he directed pre-signatures but notarization followed the attorney’s presence. | Not proven by clear and convincing evidence; not a violation. |
| Whether Paul failed to cooperate with the Director's investigations (Rule 25 RLPR). | Director: multiple late responses and incomplete cooperation violated 25 RLPR. | Paul eventually responded; timing was lacking but not entirely uncooperative. | Failure to timely respond constitutes failure to cooperate; violation established. |
| What discipline is appropriate given the misconduct and history. | Discipline should reflect seriousness and history with substantial weight on public trust. | Discipline should be proportionate; prior suspensions must be weighed. | Indefinite suspension with minimum four months, plus costs and reinstatement terms. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Varriano, 755 N.W.2d 282 (Minn. 2008) (bears on burden of proof and deference to referee in disciplinary matters)
- In re Engel, 538 N.W.2d 906 (Minn. 1995) (failure to cooperate with disciplinary investigations supports suspension)
- In re Merlin, 572 N.W.2d 741 (Minn. 1998) (negligent client matters can warrant severe discipline)
- In re Ulanowski, 800 N.W.2d 785 (Minn. 2011) (failure to cooperate with disciplinary investigations as aggravator)
- In re Levenstein, 438 N.W.2d 665 (Minn. 1989) (indefinite suspension for repeated neglect and related misconduct)