In re Disciplinary Action Against Albrecht
2014 Minn. LEXIS 191
Minn.2014Background
- Alan J. Albrecht, admitted 1988, has a long disciplinary history including multiple admonitions, probations, suspensions, a public reprimand, and an ongoing indefinite suspension (minimum two years) from 2010.
- While representing client K.A. (2005–2007), Albrecht had sexual relations with her, continued to pressure her for sex after she sought to end the relationship, and sometimes met in his office.
- While suspended in 2011, Albrecht worked as a paralegal at Thao & Li, prepared a retainer and advised client J.M. on bankruptcy matters, coached him to give misleading testimony, and participated in filings.
- In August 2011 Albrecht received two payments related to J.M.’s bankruptcy that he retained or deposited into his personal account; he later lied to the Director about the timing/receipt of at least one payment and failed to turn funds over to the firm.
- While suspended and seeking reinstatement in 2013, Albrecht falsely claimed to have taken a law-school final and misrepresented his availability for a disciplinary conference call.
- Referee recommended disbarment; the Director agreed. The Supreme Court reviewed the referee’s findings (conclusive because no transcript was ordered) and imposed disbarment, affirming violations of several professional rules but rejecting some referee legal conclusions.
Issues
| Issue | Director's Argument | Albrecht's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sexual relations with a client violated Rule 1.8(j) | Albrecht had sex with K.A. during representation and pressured her afterward, violating 1.8(j) | Relationship began consensually; no harm | Held: Violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.8(j); lawyer–client inequality renders sexual relations improper even if initially consensual |
| Whether giving legal advice while suspended violated practice rules (Rule 5.5 and related) | Albrecht, while suspended, rendered legal advice and performed core legal services for J.M., violating Rule 5.5 (and 5.8 allegations) | Claimed paralegal role and limited involvement; challenge to application of some rules | Held: Violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 5.5(a); referee’s additional Rule 5.5 finding about funds was beyond charges and not considered |
| Whether retention of client funds and lying about them violated trust, honesty, and cooperation rules (Rules 1.15, 8.1, 8.4, Rule 25) | Albrecht received and retained payments tied to J.M.’s matter, failed to report/turn over funds, and lied to the Director about the wire transfer — violating trust-account, honesty, and cooperation rules | Argued lack of charged violation under some rules and that lying did not equal noncooperation under Rule 25 | Held: Violations of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.15(a), 8.1, and 8.4(c),(d), and Rule 25, RLPR; lying to Director constituted failure to cooperate |
| Whether false/misleading statements about taking an exam and availability violated rules governing false statements (Rules 3.3, 4.1, 8.1, 8.4) | Director argued Albrecht misled referee/Director about taking exam and about attendance, violating candor and honesty rules | Albrecht argued Rules 3.3 and 4.1 apply only when representing a client and thus do not apply to his statements | Held: Did not violate Rules 3.3(a)(1) or 4.1 (those apply to client representation), but violations of 8.1 and 8.4 for dishonesty remained |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Singer, 541 N.W.2d 313 (Minn. 1996) (court is sole arbiter of discipline; factors for discipline)
- In re Albrecht, 779 N.W.2d 530 (Minn. 2010) (prior indefinite suspension and discussion of repeated misconduct)
- In re Grigsby, 815 N.W.2d 836 (Minn. 2012) (practicing while suspended harms profession)
- In re Jorissen, 391 N.W.2d 822 (Minn. 1986) (disbarment for representing as lawyer while suspended)
- In re Ruffenach, 486 N.W.2d 387 (Minn. 1992) (dishonesty by lawyers is among most serious misconduct)
- In re Weyhrich, 339 N.W.2d 274 (Minn. 1983) (elements required to mitigate based on psychological disorder)
- In re Mayne, 783 N.W.2d 153 (Minn. 2010) (limitations on mitigation for psychological disorder)
- In re O'Brien, 809 N.W.2d 463 (Minn. 2012) (warning against double-counting noncooperation as separate aggravator)
- In re Montez, 812 N.W.2d 58 (Minn. 2012) (referee findings conclusive absent transcript)
- In re Dedefo, 781 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2010) (court will not review factual challenges without hearing transcript)