State v. Smith, 2012 ND 209

McDonagh admitted to misusing client funds, forging title opinions, and misappropriating trust assets; he deposited client funds into operating accounts to cover firm expenses.
He misrepresented a land transaction and forged signatures on title opinions presented to the bank to obtain credit.
Two trusts (Roxanne Laughlin and Bruce Voelker) were entitled to refunds but funds were diverted or misapplied.
There was a pattern of deceit including forged documents, lies to associates, and misapplication of client funds.
The Hearing Panel recommended a 3-year suspension with restitution and costs; the Court rejected sanctions and imposed disbarment.
McDonagh must pay restitution to Voelker ($5,000) and the Client Protection Fund via SBAND ($3,000) and costs ($2,500).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is disbarment appropriate given the misconduct?	Disciplinary Board argues disbarment due to serious deceit.	McDonagh cooperated but admitted conduct; mitigation insufficient.	Disbarment is appropriate.
Did McDonagh violate safekeeping and fee rules?	Yes; used client funds for firm expenses and failed to safeguard.	Admitted conduct; restitution offered.	Yes, violations established.
Should restitution and costs be awarded as proposed?	Restitution and costs necessary to remedy harm.	Cooperation reduces sanction impact.	Restitution and costs awarded as stated.

Disciplinary Bd. v. Buresh, 2007 ND 8 (North Dakota (2007)) (discipline review de novo; factors guiding sanction)
Disciplinary Bd. v. Mahler, 2012 ND 124 (North Dakota (2012)) (cooperation and restitution not always offset severity)