History
  • No items yet
midpage
851 N.W.2d 868
Minn.
2014
Read the full case

Background

  • Moe served as guardian and conservator for R.M., a vulnerable adult, starting February 2010.
  • As counsel for O.M., Moe advised on financial matters and VA benefits; later, Moe represented L.M. against O.M. with a conflict of interest.
  • Moe obtained confidential information from O.M. that could be used against O.M. in L.M.’s matter, and his investigation of O.M. related to his prior representation.
  • After R.M. died in 2011, Moe failed to respond to three discovery requests and ignored a court order compelling discovery.
  • Moe misappropriated R.M.’s funds (about $423.22 total) for personal use, submitted a final account with intentional misrepresentations, and did not pay court-ordered restitution or a $5,000 sanction.
  • The Director petitioned for disciplinary action; Moe did not respond, and the Board ordered disbarment as the appropriate sanction.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Disciplinary sanction for Moe’s misconduct Director advocates disbarment due to misappropriation and related abuses Moe did not respond; no argument filed Disbarment is appropriate
Whether conflicts of interest warranted discipline Conflicting representation and related investigation created duty violations Moe’s actions show conflict, but no defense presented Conflict of interest supported disciplinary action as part of overall misconduct
Whether misrepresentations to the court justify sanctions Final account contained intentional misrepresentations No response; no contrary argument Misrepresentations justify severe discipline
Whether failure to respond to discovery and court orders warrants disbarment Repeated discovery failures and disobedience show serious misconduct No defense filed Failure to comply supports disbarment

Key Cases Cited

  • In re Mayne, 783 N.W.2d 153 (Minn. 2010) (misappropriation by fiduciary attorney-in-fact supports disbarment)
  • In re Grigsby, 764 N.W.2d 54 (Minn. 2009) (aggregate weight of violations justifies severe discipline)
  • In re Hummel, 839 N.W.2d 78 (Minn. 2013) (case-by-case sanction assessment considering aggravating factors)
  • In re Rooney, 709 N.W.2d 263 (Minn. 2006) (misappropriation and concealment justify disbarment)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: In Re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Paul Arthur MOE, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 264477
Court Name: Supreme Court of Minnesota
Date Published: Aug 13, 2014
Citations: 851 N.W.2d 868; 2014 Minn. LEXIS 368; 2014 WL 3932724; A13-1611
Docket Number: A13-1611
Court Abbreviation: Minn.
Log In
    In Re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Paul Arthur MOE, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 264477, 851 N.W.2d 868