In re Disciplinary Action Against Kalla, 811 N.W.2d 576

Kalla, admitted to practice in Minnesota in 2003, had no prior discipline.
OLPR filed a petition for discipline in Sept. 2010 alleging a conflict of interest under Minn. Rules of Prof. Conduct.
The conflict arose from Kalla representing Client A and Client B in related matters with overlapping issues.
Client A’s usury claim against a Lender led Kalla to discover Client B also had a loan with the same Lender.
Kalla later represented Client B in a separate usury suit without informing Client B of her connection to Client A’s case.
A disqualification motion and resulting orders illustrated the conflict and the ongoing, disputed representation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dual representation violated Rule 1.7(a) or 1.9(a).	Kalla’s dual representation created material adversity or conflict.	Kalla argues no direct adversity and that waivers could excuse conflicts.	Yes, violated 1.7(a)(2) and 1.9(a); improper continued representation.
Whether Kalla obtained proper informed consent from Client B.	No written consent from Client B to continued representation.	Written waiver from Client B was not obtained; waiver could have allowed it.	No waiver obtained; violation of 1.7(b)(4) and 1.9(a).
What discipline is appropriate for the misconduct.	Public reprimand with supervised probation is appropriate.	Private admonition would be sufficient.	Public reprimand and two years of supervised probation adopted.
Whether the referee’s findings were clearly erroneous and supported by the record.	Findings supported by clear and convincing evidence.	Many findings challenged as not clearly supported.	Findings are not clearly erroneous; supported by the record.

In re Gillard, 271 N.W.2d 785 (Minn. 1978) (clear and convincing standard for misconduct; standard of review for findings)
In re Miera, 426 N.W.2d 850 (Minn. 1988) (full, clear, and convincing evidence required)
In re Moeller, 582 N.W.2d 554 (Minn. 1998) (review of referee findings; not conclusive when transcript ordered)
In re Stanbury, 614 N.W.2d 209 (Minn. 2000) (deference to credibility determinations)
In re Barta, 461 N.W.2d 382 (Minn. 1990) (deference to referee credibility findings)
In re Savin, 780 N.W.2d 927 (Minn. 2010) (public reprimand as appropriate discipline for conflicts of interest)
In re Brown, 414 N.W.2d 410 (Minn. 1987) (conflicts of interest discipline guidance)
In re Edinger, 700 N.W.2d 462 (Minn. 2005) (discipline determination weighs four factors)
In re Madsen, 426 N.W.2d 434 (Minn. 1988) (purpose of discipline; deterrence and public protection)
In re Vaught, 693 N.W.2d 886 (Minn. 2005) (four-factor framework for sanctions)
In re Holker, 730 N.W.2d 768 (Minn. 2007) (prior disciplinary history as aggravating factor)
In re Fett, 790 N.W.2d 840 (Minn. 2010) (aggravating/mitigating considerations in sanctions)
In re Rebeau, 787 N.W.2d 168 (Minn. 2010) (lack of remorse as aggravating factor)