899 N.W.2d 183
Minn.2017Background
- William Keith Bulmer, II admitted to sexual relations with (1) a witness in a criminal matter, (2) the wife of a client charged with first-degree murder (allegedly tied to fee forbearance), and (3) a client in a DWI matter; the latter two matters led to the petition and supplementary petition.
- Bulmer made false statements to an Assistant County Attorney investigating the postconviction petition alleging the undisclosed sexual relationship with the client’s wife.
- Bulmer previously received three private admonitions from the Director, one involving sexual relations with a witness.
- Bulmer waived procedural rights under Rule 14, RLPR, and unconditionally admitted the allegations; the parties jointly recommended an 18-month suspension.
- The court found the misconduct showed a serious, repeated pattern (sexual relations with client-participants and misrepresentations) that undermined client trust, public confidence, and the client’s postconviction claim.
- The court rejected the parties’ joint recommendation and imposed a 3-year suspension, effective 14 days after filing, with no right to petition for reinstatement for 3 years and conditions for reinstatement including the professional responsibility exam and CLEs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bulmer’s sexual relationships with a client, a client’s spouse, and a witness constitute professional misconduct warranting public discipline | Director: Yes — sex with client-participants and client’s spouse created conflicts, betrayed clients, and harmed integrity; public discipline required | Bulmer: Admitted misconduct, waived rights, and joined parties’ recommendation for 18-month suspension | Court: Misconduct constitutes serious professional misconduct; public discipline required and longer suspension warranted |
| Whether Bulmer’s false statements to a prosecutor aggravated discipline | Director: Yes — misrepresentations show lack of honesty and undermined client’s postconviction claim | Bulmer: Admitted the false statements but supported 18-month suspension | Court: False statements aggravated misconduct and supported increased discipline |
| Whether prior private admonitions and repeated misconduct justify greater discipline | Director: Pattern of recurring misconduct warrants significant suspension | Bulmer: Acknowledged prior admonitions; parties recommended 18-month suspension | Court: Prior admonitions and repeat violations justify a longer suspension (3 years) |
| Appropriate length and conditions of discipline | Director: Public suspension appropriate; parties jointly recommended 18 months | Bulmer: Agreed to 18 months and conditions | Court: Rejected 18 months as insufficient; imposed 3-year suspension, reinstatement conditions including professional responsibility exam and CLEs |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Olson, 886 N.W.2d 485 (Minn. 2016) (attorney suspended for sexual relationship with client)
- In re Lowe, 824 N.W.2d 634 (Minn. 2013) (lengthy suspension for sexual relationship with client)
- In re Mulcahey, 577 N.W.2d 210 (Minn. 1997) (suspension for sexual relations with client)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Owen, 30 N.E.3d 910 (Ohio 2014) (lawyer’s sexual relationship with client’s spouse creates inherent conflict and severe harm)
- In re Torgerson, 870 N.W.2d 602 (Minn. 2015) (misrepresentations warrant severe discipline)
- In re Lundeen, 811 N.W.2d 602 (Minn. 2012) (dishonesty by lawyer justifies severe discipline)
- In re Eskola, 891 N.W.2d 294 (Minn. 2017) (court retains ultimate responsibility for discipline)
- In re Plummer, 725 N.W.2d 96 (Minn. 2006) (discipline aims to protect public and deter misconduct)