In Re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST David A. OVERBOE, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 83318, 867 N.W.2d 482

David A. Overboe, admitted MN (1980) and ND (1972), was suspended in MN in 2008 for unrelated misconduct and later disbarred by the North Dakota Supreme Court in 2014 following multiple disciplinary petitions.
ND found Overboe committed sexual misconduct with multiple clients (groping, exposure, offering fee reductions for sexual favors) and obtained criminal convictions for some conduct.
ND found Overboe prepared a durable power of attorney for a 92‑year‑old client (D.G.), after which Overboe’s wife used it to transfer $190,000 and 640 acres to herself without the client’s knowledge or consideration; Overboe drafted the deed.
ND found Overboe practiced law while his ND license was suspended by causing and serving garnishment documents and failing to supervise his nonlawyer assistant.
ND imposed disbarment based on the cumulative misconduct and aggravating factors (prior discipline, selfish motive, pattern/multiple offenses, lack of remorse, vulnerable victims, long experience).
The Minnesota Director sought reciprocal discipline under Rule 12(d), RLPR; Minnesota reviewed whether ND proceedings were fundamentally fair and whether disbarment would be unjust or substantially different from discipline warranted in Minnesota.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Director)	Defendant's Argument (Overboe)	Held
Were ND disciplinary proceedings fundamentally fair despite delay?	ND proceedings provided notice and opportunity to be heard; any delay did not prejudice Overboe.	Delay (over 6 years) violated due process and prejudiced Overboe.	Proceedings were fundamentally fair; Overboe failed to show actual substantial prejudice.
Are ND findings/conclusions conclusive for reciprocal discipline?	ND findings establish misconduct for MN discipline under Rule 12(d).	Argued (on appeal in ND) that evidence was insufficient; in MN he did not contest.	ND findings conclusively establish misconduct for MN reciprocal proceeding.
Is reciprocal disbarment unjust or substantially different from discipline MN would impose?	Misconduct (financial exploitation of vulnerable client, sexual misconduct, practice while suspended) and aggravators warrant disbarment in MN as well.	Argued for disability inactive status and less severe discipline.	Disbarment is appropriate and not substantially different from MN discipline.
Should Overboe have been transferred to disability inactive status?	ND panel and court concluded he failed to prove disability status (PTSD) that would warrant transfer.	Overboe claimed PTSD and requested disability inactive status.	Court accepted ND’s rejection of disability status; transfer not warranted on record.

In re Overboe, 745 N.W.2d 852 (Minn. 2008) (prior Minnesota suspension for deceptive trust‑account labeling and related misconduct)
In re Overboe, 844 N.W.2d 851 (N.D. 2014) (North Dakota Supreme Court opinion affirming findings of sexual misconduct, financial exploitation, practicing while suspended, and ordering disbarment)
In re Wolff, 810 N.W.2d 312 (Minn. 2012) (standard for assessing fairness of out‑of‑state disciplinary proceedings)
In re Rebeau, 787 N.W.2d 168 (Minn. 2010) (factors for evaluating whether reciprocal discipline is substantially different)
In re Meaden, 628 N.W.2d 129 (Minn. 2001) (reciprocal‑discipline inquiry focuses on whether foreign discipline is unjust or substantially different)
In re Moe, 851 N.W.2d 868 (Minn. 2014) (disbarment for financial exploitation of vulnerable client)
In re Albrecht, 845 N.W.2d 184 (Minn. 2014) (severe discipline, including disbarment, for extensive sexual misconduct with clients)