In Re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Robert D. STONEBURNER, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0105909
2016 Minn. LEXIS 425
Minn.2016Background
- Robert D. Stoneburner, admitted 1977, had no prior disciplinary history and was criminally tried for conduct on Aug. 24, 2013 involving a domestic dispute with his wife.
- During the incident Stoneburner threw a small soft-sided case that struck his wife, and physically took the phone from her, hanging up multiple 911 calls and misleading the operator to avoid arrest.
- A jury convicted Stoneburner of gross misdemeanor interference with a 911 call and misdemeanor domestic assault-fear; acquitted on domestic assault-harm.
- The Director filed a disciplinary petition alleging violations of MRPC Rules 8.4(b) (criminal acts reflecting adversely on fitness) and 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to administration of justice).
- A referee found no violation of either rule and recommended dismissal; the Director ordered a transcript and appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court affirmed that Rule 8.4(b) was not proven by clear and convincing evidence, reversed the referee as to Rule 8.4(d), and imposed a public reprimand plus costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stoneburner’s misdemeanor domestic assault-fear violated MRPC 8.4(b) | The assault involves violence and therefore reflects adversely on fitness to practice law | Conduct was unrelated to law practice, caused no client harm, no prior record; referee relied on mitigating facts | Referee’s conclusion that Rule 8.4(b) was not violated was not clearly erroneous; Director failed to prove violation by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether interfering with a 911 call violated MRPC 8.4(d) | Interfering with emergency services prejudices administration of justice and thus violates 8.4(d) | The act was an isolated, non-law-related incident; analogized to prior case (Hoffman) where no discipline was imposed | Court held the interference clearly prejudiced the administration of justice and violated Rule 8.4(d); referee clearly erred |
| Appropriate discipline for Rule 8.4(d) violation | Director: at least a public reprimand | Stoneburner: private admonition suffices given isolation and lack of prior record | Court imposed a public reprimand and $900 costs, finding private admonition insufficient given the seriousness of impeding access to justice |
| Relevance of lack of connection to law practice or prior record | Director: gravity of acts outweighs isolation | Stoneburner: lack of prior history and no client harm mitigate against discipline | Court: lack of connection/prior record relevant to 8.4(b) but not to 8.4(d); 8.4(d) prohibits prejudice to administration of justice regardless of context |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Selmer, 749 N.W.2d 30 (Minn. 2008) (framework for assessing when criminal conduct implicates professional rules)
- In re Hoffman, 379 N.W.2d 514 (Minn. 1986) (discussed in context of isolated criminal conduct and disciplinary response)
- In re Gherity, 673 N.W.2d 474 (Minn. 2004) (assessing how prior discipline and criminal history inform Rule 8.4(b) analysis)
- In re Torgerson, 870 N.W.2d 602 (Minn. 2015) (explaining Rule 8.4(d) targets harm to administration of justice itself)
- In re Albrecht, 845 N.W.2d 184 (Minn. 2014) (overview that the Supreme Court is the sole arbiter of attorney discipline)