In re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Grigsby, 815 N.W.2d 836

Grigsby was suspended from the practice of law and drafted and filed an appellate brief for a former client (J.R.) while suspended, signing J.R.’s name and indicating J.R. was pro se.
J.R.’s appeal proceeded pro se; his conviction was later reversed on double jeopardy grounds, and the brief was filed in May 2009 during Grigsby’s suspension.
The Director filed a petition for disciplinary action on May 31, 2011; the referee found misconduct and recommended at least a 9-month suspension and a reinstatement hearing.
The Minnesota Supreme Court majority concluded Grigsby committed most violations but imposed a 60-day suspension instead of the recommended discipline.
The court analyzed violations of Rules 5.5(a), 1.2(a), 3.3(a)(1), 4.1, and 8.4(c)-(d) in connection with drafting the brief, signing J.R.’s name, and misrepresenting J.R.’s pro se status.
The court also considered disciplinary factors (nature, cumulative weight, harm, aggravating/mitigating factors) and procedural delay in filing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 1.16(d) justifies practicing while suspended	Grigsby argues 1.16(d) allows minimal actions to protect the client.	Director contends 1.16(d) does not excuse the conduct here.	1.16(d) does not excuse the conduct.
Whether drafting and filing for a client while suspended violated 5.5(a)	Grigsby contends 5.5(a) was not violated; drafting was preparatory work.	Director argues drafting for a client while suspended constitutes practicing law without a license.	Grigsby violated 5.5(a).
Whether signing the client’s name and indicating pro se violated 1.2(a)	Grigsby claims implied authorization; argues no explicit consent required.	Director argues Grigsby exceeded implied authority by signing the name.	Grigsby violated 1.2(a).
Whether indicating pro se and signing the client’s name violated 3.3(a)(1), 4.1, and 8.4(c)-(d)	Grigsby contends status was truthful and he did not intend to deceive.	Director asserts false statements were made to court and were not justified by intent.	Grigsby violated 3.3(a)(1), 4.1, and 8.4(c)-(d).

In re Ulanowski, 800 N.W.2d 785 (Minn. 2011) (discipline factors and de novo review of legal interpretations)
In re Jorissen, 891 N.W.2d 822 (Minn. 1986) (conduct constitutes unauthorized practice when aiding in legal defense)
In re Riggs, 664 N.W.2d 290 (Minn. 2003) (signing client’s name to an affidavit with knowledge but without intent to defraud)
In re Dowdal, 284 N.W.2d 394 (Minn. 1979) (reprimanding for signing client’s name to an affidavit with express authorization)
In re Hunter, 473 N.W.2d 866 (Minn. 1991) (discipline for practicing while suspended; contempt of court referenced)
In re Rebeau, 787 N.W.2d 168 (Minn. 2010) (discipline framework considering nature and severity of misconduct)
In re Neill, 486 N.W.2d 150 (Minn. 1992) (extension of suspension for multiple factors including client matters)
In re Houge, 764 N.W.2d 328 (Minn. 2009) (serious misconduct with respect to false statements to court)