In Re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Mpatanishi Syanaloli TAYARI-GARRETT, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 342075, 866 N.W.2d 513

Background

Tayari-Garrett, admitted in 2004, represented a criminal defendant (E.M.M.) and was scheduled for trial beginning May 2, 2011.
She sought a continuance, bought a nonrefundable ticket to Paris (May 4–9) for a family wedding, and then failed to appear at trial on May 2.
She claimed hospitalization in Dallas; the court ordered medical documentation and proof regarding travel plans. She produced no documentation and later flew to Paris on May 4.
She appeared by phone from Paris on May 5 but did not disclose her travel; she missed the May 9 contempt hearing while returning from Paris.
A Minnesota court convicted her of misdemeanor contempt for willfully disobeying a court mandate (affirmed on appeal). The Director filed disciplinary charges alleging violations of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 3.4(c) and 8.4(b)–(d).
A referee found she violated those rules (including making false or misleading statements to the tribunal) and recommended indefinite suspension with no petition for reinstatement for at least 120 days; the Supreme Court adopted that sanction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Director)	Defendant's Argument (Tayari-Garrett)	Held
Whether conviction for willful disobedience can support professional misconduct findings	Conviction is conclusive evidence under RLPR Rule 19(a) that she willfully disobeyed a court mandate, supporting violations of 3.4(c) and 8.4(b)/(d)	Conviction and charges lack particularized factual acts for discipline; cannot relitigate underlying facts here	Court held the conviction is conclusive and supports violations of 3.4(c) and 8.4(b)/(d)
Whether her statements to the court were false/misleading (8.4(c))	Referee found specific misleading statements: May 3 e-mail implying inability to attend for medical reasons (omitting Paris travel) and May 5 hearing statements about inability to attend May 9	Argued statements were not deceitful or lacked requisite intent; challenged factual findings	Court deferred to referee credibility findings; held she made false/misleading statements and violated 8.4(c)
Whether Rule 8.4(c) requires intent to deceive	Director: falsity and omission satisfy misconduct; intent may be shown by knowledge of falsity	Tayari-Garrett: even if statements false, lacked intent to deceive	Court explained intent for 8.4(c) at minimum means knowledge of falsity; referee found such knowledge, so violation stands
Appropriate discipline	Director supported referee: indefinite suspension, no reinstatement petition for 120 days	Respondent argued no discipline or lesser sanction	Court adopted referee’s recommendation: indefinite suspension, effective in 14 days, ineligible to petition for reinstatement for at least 120 days; $900 costs

Key Cases Cited

In re Voss, 830 N.W.2d 867 (Minn. 2013) (Director bears burden; defer to referee findings with transcript)
In re Lyons, 780 N.W.2d 629 (Minn. 2010) (deference to referee on credibility and demeanor)
In re Lundeen, 811 N.W.2d 602 (Minn. 2012) (criminal acts related to practice of law reflect adversely on fitness)
In re Pierce, 706 N.W.2d 749 (Minn. 2005) (failure to appear at scheduled hearings can violate Rule 8.4(d))
In re Paul, 809 N.W.2d 693 (Minn. 2012) (failure to follow procedural rules may warrant discipline)
In re Mayrand, 723 N.W.2d 261 (Minn. 2006) (failure to comply with deadlines and show-cause orders relevant to misconduct)
In re Michael, 836 N.W.2d 753 (Minn. 2013) (30-day suspension for tribal-order violation and false statement; lack of remorse aggravated)
In re Lochow, 469 N.W.2d 91 (Minn. 1991) (truthfulness to tribunals central to profession; severe discipline appropriate for misrepresentations)
In re Grigsby, 815 N.W.2d 836 (Minn. 2012) (60-day suspension for false statement to court and practicing while suspended)
In re Winter, 770 N.W.2d 463 (Minn. 2009) (120-day suspension where misrepresentations plus prior discipline)
In re Van Liew, 712 N.W.2d 758 (Minn. 2006) (90-day suspension for false tribunal statements and client neglect)
In re Rebeau, 787 N.W.2d 168 (Minn. 2010) (court gives weight to referee sanction recommendations)
In re Oberhauser, 679 N.W.2d 153 (Minn. 2004) (factors for determining discipline)
In re Daly, 291 Minn. 488, 189 N.W.2d 176 (Minn. 1971) (willful disobedience to a court order can justify disbarment)