868 N.W.2d 55
Minn.2015Background
- Hansen, admitted Minnesota attorney since 1991, was placed on private probation in Aug. 2013 for failing to cooperate with the Director’s investigation; probationary terms required compliance with professional rules and cooperation.
- The Director filed a disciplinary petition on Dec. 4, 2014 while probation was ongoing; Hansen did not answer, resulting in admissions of misconduct.
- Misconduct alleged: (1) communicating with an unrepresented person (K.L. matter) in 2011, (2) trust account violations ( Sept. 2013–Feb. 2014) including overdrafts and improper deposits, and (3) failure to cooperate with investigations in both matters.
- Hansen’s cooperation during the investigations was minimal, with repeated delays and failure to provide requested documents or timely responses.
- The Court imposed indefinite suspension from the practice of law for at least 90 days, plus a reinstatement petition requirement and payment of costs; other procedural notices apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriate discipline for Hansen’s misconduct | Director seeks indefinite suspension with no petition for reinstatement for 6 months | Hansen seeks a 30-day suspension | Indefinite suspension with a minimum of 90 days, reinstatement petition required |
| Aggravation due to probationary status | Misconduct occurred while on probation, increasing severity | No additional aggravation beyond the misconduct | Aggravated by probation; fitness for return required via Rule 18(a)-(d) |
| Cooperation failures as basis for discipline | Failure to cooperate warrants suspension and discipline | Cooperation imperfect but not to the level of indefinite suspension | Yes, cooperation failures underpin the discipline and aggravate severity |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Plummer, 725 N.W.2d 96 (Minn. 2006) (guides discipline factors and public protection considerations)
- In re Nelson, 733 N.W.2d 458 (Minn. 2007) (four-factor framework for discipline)
- In re Hoedeman, 620 N.W.2d 714 (Minn. 2001) (seriousness of failing to respond to disciplinary investigations)
- Hartke, 529 N.W.2d 678 (Minn. 1995) (trust account responsibilities and avoidance of improper conduct)
- Beal, 374 N.W.2d 715 (Minn. 1985) (importance of proper trust accounts to client protection)
- Nathanson, 812 N.W.2d 70 (Minn. 2012) (consistency with prior sanctions in analogous misconduct)
- Rebeau, 787 N.W.2d 168 (Minn. 2010) (case-by-case discipline based on unique facts)
- Meidinger, 848 N.W.2d 235 (Minn. 2014) (order imposing indefinite suspension for nonresponse to investigation)
- Hechter, 860 N.W.2d 680 (Minn. 2015) (trust account violations with probationary context)
- Fitzpatrick, 859 N.W.2d 526 (Minn. 2015) (distinguishes cases with single incident from those with probation violations)
- Ellenbecker, 825 N.W.2d 117 (Minn. 2012) (90-day suspension for similar misconduct)
- Aitken, 787 N.W.2d 152 (Minn. 2010) (90-day suspension for related failures and misconduct)
- Swokowski, 767 N.W.2d 3 (Minn. 2009) (90-day suspension for trust account and cooperation failures)
- Ranum, 611 N.W.2d 344 (Minn. 2000) (3-month suspension for trust account and related misconduct)