In re Disciplinary Action Against Nathanson
812 N.W.2d 70
Minn.2012Background
- Nathanson was admitted to practice in Minnesota in 1982 and resides in Arizona, not currently practicing in Minnesota.
- The Director filed a 2010 petition alleging Nathanson’s misconduct in handling client matters between 2003 and 2009 and during the Director’s investigation, including incompetence, neglect, failure to obtain informed consent, frivolous or unmeritorious appeals, disobedience of tribunal rules, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
- An evidentiary hearing occurred April 1, 2011; Nathanson did not appear or present evidence, and the referee found multiple rule violations and recommended indefinite suspension with a minimum 90 days and reinstatement subject to Rule 18(d).
- The targeted matters include D.C.’s police civil-rights cases where Nathanson mishandled appeals, failed to inform the client of arbitration awards, and engaged in failed appellate filings and dismissals.
- Additional investigations revealed misconduct in other appellate matters (e.g., filing deficiencies, failure to pay filing fees, and failure to comply with court orders) affecting at least 14 appeals across multiple clients, leading to sanctions in various cases.
- Nathanson’s license to practice in Minnesota was temporarily suspended pending the proceedings, and the final order herein imposes indefinite suspension with a 90-day minimum and reinstatement conditions including CLE, moral change, and Rule 26 notice requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Director’s authority to investigate beyond the complaint | Nathanson | Nathanson | Director authority affirmed; investigation within scope of the complaint. |
| Cooperation with disciplinary investigation | Nathanson | Nathanson objected to scope; refusal excused by Rule 8(a) argument. | Nathanson’s failure to cooperate deemed misconduct; findings conclusive due to lack of transcript. |
| Disciplinary sanction appropriate | Director | Nathanson did not oppose the sanction; argue for lesser or different terms. | Indefinite suspension with minimum 90 days and Rule 18 reinstatement process; sanctions aligned with prior similar cases. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Hawkins, 725 N.W.2d 373 (Minn. 2006) (multiple mishandled appeals; cooperated with proceedings; stayed 60-day suspension plus probation)
- In re Crandall, 699 N.W.2d 769 (Minn. 2005) (abandoned cases; significant sanctions; reinstatement procedure required)
- In re Montez, 812 N.W.2d 58 (Minn. 2012) (conclusive factual findings when no transcript ordered; Rule 14(e) applicability)
- In re Ulanowski, 800 N.W.2d 799 (Minn. 2011) (aggravating and mitigating factors; emphasis on prior misconduct)
- In re Rebeau, 787 N.W.2d 168 (Minn. 2010) (disciplinary factors and sanctions framework for professional misconduct)