860 N.W.2d 368
Minn.2015Background
- Mark A. Greenman, admitted 1992, was the subject of disciplinary petitions alleging misconduct in eight matters (filed Oct 2013 and Jan 2014) and later failed to cooperate with the Director’s investigations.
- Proven misconduct included: misrepresentation in arbitration (submitting a client declaration falsely represented as signed), pursuing frivolous litigation, repeated procedural errors, client neglect, incompetence, failing to appear at hearings/mediation, failing to return a client file timely, failing to pay court-ordered sanctions/law-related debt, and noncooperation with disciplinary process.
- Specific client harms: P.R.’s federal claims were lost after Greenman withdrew without notice and failed to appear; several clients experienced delays or dismissal; a court-reporter judgment went unpaid for three years.
- The referee found violations of multiple Minn. Rules of Professional Conduct (including 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.16, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4(c), 8.1(b), 8.4(c), 8.4(d)) and Rule 25 RLPR; Greenman did not order a transcript, so referee findings are conclusive.
- The referee recommended indefinite suspension with no reinstatement petition for at least 6 months; the Supreme Court adopted that sanction, imposed conditions (notice, payment of sanctions, Rule 18 reinstatement requirements), and assessed costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity and sufficiency of charges / fairness of proceedings | Director: charges were specific, petitioner had full opportunity to present defense | Greenman: alleged Director misled him about scope/abandonment and was treated unfairly | Court: charges were specific, Greenman had opportunity to present evidence; fairness claims meritless (referee findings conclusive) |
| Misrepresentation in arbitration (B.J. matter) | Director: Greenman misrepresented that client electronically signed declaration and submitted altered signed copy after hearing | Greenman: contested facts but did not rebut with transcript/evidence | Court: violation of honesty rule (8.4(c)) and conduct prejudicial to administration of justice (8.4(d)) |
| Client neglect/competence and procedural failures (multiple matters) | Director: Greenman repeatedly failed to act diligently, communicate, attend hearings, comply with court rules, and competently represent clients | Greenman: disputed some findings but failed to produce transcript or sufficient contrary evidence | Court: violations of competence (1.1), diligence (1.3), communication (1.4), termination duties (1.16), tribunal rules (3.4(c)), and others; client harm was substantial |
| Noncooperation with disciplinary investigation | Director: Greenman failed to respond to multiple investigation notices and delayed cooperation even after treatment | Greenman: said he was in inpatient treatment and unable to respond timely | Court: noncooperation violated 8.1(b) and Rule 25; treatment did not establish mitigating proof; noncooperation aggravates sanction |
| Appropriate sanction | Director: indefinite suspension (min 6 months) recommended | Greenman: argued mitigation (alcohol dependence) and challenged severity | Court: adopted referee—indefinite suspension effective 14 days after filing, no reinstatement petition for min 6 months; payment of specified sanctions and costs required |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Montez, 812 N.W.2d 58 (Minn. 2012) (referee findings are conclusive when transcript not ordered)
- In re Garcia, 792 N.W.2d 434 (Minn. 2010) (disciplinary proceedings require due process but are remedial/inquiry-based)
- In re Nelson, 733 N.W.2d 458 (Minn. 2007) (noncooperation can warrant indefinite suspension and increases sanction severity)
- In re Brooks, 696 N.W.2d 84 (Minn. 2005) (continuing pattern of client neglect can warrant indefinite suspension)
- In re Lundeen, 811 N.W.2d 602 (Minn. 2012) (misrepresentations demonstrate lack of honesty and warrant severe discipline)
- In re Aitken, 787 N.W.2d 152 (Minn. 2010) (forgery or falsifying client signature and noncooperation support substantial suspension)
- In re Oberhauser, 679 N.W.2d 153 (Minn. 2004) (cumulative multiple violations can justify severe discipline)
- In re Rebeau, 787 N.W.2d 168 (Minn. 2010) (purposes of sanctions: protect public, judicial system, and deter future misconduct)