In re Disciplinary Action Against Michael, 836 N.W.2d 753

Background

Lori Mae Michael, admitted in Minnesota (2001) and previously Prairie Island Tribal Court counsel, represented grandparents W.M. and E.C. in tribal child-protection proceedings involving allegations of abuse to minor C.C.
Tribal court disqualified Michael from representing W.M. and E.C. in that tribal-court matter after opposing counsel argued a conflict based on Michael’s prior work for the tribe.
After disqualification, Michael emailed the guardian ad litem (David Jacobsen) and Tribal Court (and opposing counsel) about the case, questioned the court’s impartiality, and asserted privilege for her communications.
Michael also contacted Assistant Goodhue County Attorney Erin Kuester regarding criminal prosecution; timing of that contact (before or after disqualification) was disputed. An audio recording was sent to Kuester and the county declined prosecution.
A referee found Michael violated multiple Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct (including Rules 3.4(c), 3.1, 3.3(a)(1), 8.4(c)-(d), and 1.16(d)), recommended a 60-day suspension and supervised probation; the Supreme Court affirmed misconduct but imposed a 30-day suspension plus two years’ supervised probation and other conditions.

Issues

Issue	Director's Argument (Plaintiff)	Michael's Argument (Defendant)	Held
Due process of disciplinary proceedings	Proceedings provided notice and full opportunity to defend.	Proceedings violated due process.	Due process was satisfied; charges were specific and Michael had full hearing rights.
Did emailing guardian/judge after disqualification violate tribunal rules (Rule 3.4(c) and Rule 8.4(d))?	Michael knowingly violated the disqualification order by contacting Jacobsen and the court, prejudicing administration of justice.	Michael argued privilege and other defenses and disputed scope of disqualification.	Court upheld finding that emailing Jacobsen and advocating post-disqualification knowingly violated Rule 3.4(c) and constituted conduct prejudicial to administration of justice.
Were privilege-based arguments over the Jacobsen email frivolous (Rule 3.1)?	Michael’s attorney-client/common-interest/privilege arguments lacked an objectively reasonable basis and were frivolous.	Michael contended arguments were researched and made in good faith.	Court held the privilege arguments were objectively frivolous under Rule 3.1 and disciplined accordingly.
Did Michael knowingly make a false statement to the tribunal about timing of her call to Kuester (Rule 3.3(a)(1), 8.4(c),(d))?	Michael knowingly misstated timing of the Kuester contact and was dishonest to the tribunal.	Michael claimed the call occurred before disqualification and disputed credibility of witnesses.	Court found Michael’s inconsistent statements and record support that she knowingly made a false statement, violating Rule 3.3(a)(1) and Rules 8.4(c)/(d).
Did contacting Kuester violate Rule 3.4(c) or Rule 1.16(d)?	Director argued contacting Kuester disobeyed tribunal order and failed to protect client interests under Rule 1.16(d).	Michael argued the tribal order did not bar state-court advocacy and she maintained attorney-client relationship outside the tribal court; Rule 1.16(d) inapplicable.	Court held contacting Kuester did not violate the tribal disqualification as to state prosecution and did not violate Rule 1.16(d) or Rule 3.4(c) in that context.
Appropriate discipline	Director agreed with referee (60-day suspension + supervised probation).	Michael argued no suspension necessary.	Court imposed a 30-day suspension (effective 14 days after filing), two years’ supervised probation on reinstatement, costs, CLE condition, and notice requirements.

Key Cases Cited

In re Murrin, 821 N.W.2d 195 (Minn. 2012) (due-process standard in disciplinary proceedings)
In re Ulanowski, 800 N.W.2d 785 (Minn. 2011) (deference to referee findings; standard of review)
In re Lundeen, 811 N.W.2d 602 (Minn. 2012) (failure to comply with court order violates Rule 3.4(c))
In re Panel Case No. 17289, 669 N.W.2d 898 (Minn. 2003) (objective standard for frivolous-claim analysis under Rule 3.1)
In re Winter, 770 N.W.2d 463 (Minn. 2009) (false statements to tribunal warranting discipline)
In re Getty, 401 N.W.2d 668 (Minn. 1987) (disrespectful conduct toward tribunal can be prejudicial to administration of justice)
In re Nora, 450 N.W.2d 328 (Minn. 1990) (suspension for frivolous claims and misrepresentations)
In re Scott, 657 N.W.2d 567 (Minn. 2003) (30-day suspension for false statements to court)