In re Disciplinary Action Against Saltzstein, 896 N.W.2d 864

Geoffrey R. Saltzstein (admitted 2009) was the subject of a petition for disciplinary action accusing him of misappropriating client funds, making false statements, neglecting matters, using improper fee arrangements, failing to communicate, and not cooperating with disciplinary investigations; he did not file an answer and the allegations were deemed admitted.
Misappropriation: Saltzstein withdrew client funds improperly—approximately $29,445 from client C.W. (unauthorized withdrawals from a mutual-fund account) and $38,635 from client P.A. (funds for life-insurance premiums). Partial restitution to C.W. occurred only after third‑party inquiry.
Other client harms: Failure to file appellate briefs (leading to dismissal of P.A.’s appeal and forfeiture of N.K.’s appeal deadline), failure to appear (resulting in a warrant for M.O.), sale of a client’s vehicle accepted as fee (P.A.) with proceeds retained, missed deadlines, and lack of accountings.
Repeated failures to communicate with clients and to place or account for client funds in trust accounts; several retainer/fee agreements were improper or unsigned.
Saltzstein repeatedly failed to cooperate with the Director’s investigation (untimely or no responses), did not answer the disciplinary petition, and raised no properly preserved mitigating factors. The Director sought disbarment; the court ordered disbarment and costs ($900).

Issue	Director's Argument	Saltzstein's Argument	Held
Misappropriation of client funds	Saltzstein misappropriated ~ $68,000 from clients (C.W. and P.A.), warranting disbarment	No answer filed; later letter referenced potential mitigators but raised no preserved defense	Court treated allegations as admitted; misappropriation found and is a principal basis for disbarment
Pattern of neglect and failure to communicate	Multiple clients suffered harm (dismissed appeals, warrant issued, financial loss); pattern supports severe discipline	No preserved defense in the record	Court found extensive neglect and communication failures, increasing sanction severity
Failure to cooperate with disciplinary investigations	Noncooperation aggravates discipline and undermines self‑regulation	No response to petition; no cooperation after charges	Court found violations of investigation rules and considered noncooperation an aggravating factor
Appropriate sanction given cumulative misconduct	Disbarment is appropriate given misappropriation, dishonesty, repeated violations, client harm, and lack of mitigation	Saltzstein did not timely present mitigating evidence in an answer; no supporting factual record	Court disbarred Saltzstein, citing precedent where similar misconduct led to disbarment

In re Matson, 889 N.W.2d 17 (disbarment where misappropriation and broad dishonest/neglectful conduct occurred)
In re Jones, 834 N.W.2d 671 (disbarment for misappropriation, recordkeeping failures, and noncooperation)
In re Lundeen, 811 N.W.2d 602 (disbarment for misappropriation plus neglect, dishonesty, and noncooperation)
In re Swensen, 743 N.W.2d 243 (discipline focuses on protecting the public, the judicial system, and deterrence)
In re Nelson, 733 N.W.2d 458 (four‑factor framework for assessing discipline)
In re Westby, 639 N.W.2d 358 (definition of misappropriation: client funds not placed in trust and used for other purposes)
In re Rhodes, 740 N.W.2d 574 (pattern of client neglect can warrant severe discipline)
In re Taplin, 837 N.W.2d 306 (analysis whether retention of fees constitutes misappropriation when some work was performed)
In re Oberhauser, 679 N.W.2d 153 (cumulative weight of multiple violations may compel severe discipline)