State v. Zottnick, 2011 ND 106

Stensland was hired in April 2008 to represent Jeffrey Schmeets on pending criminal matters in Sheridan and Wells Counties.
Stensland deposited a $9,200 retainer refund check made payable to Schmeets by scanning Schmeets’s signature onto the back of the check without a written agreement.
A handwriting expert testified the signature on the plea agreement did not appear genuine.
Stensland drafted a handwritten memorial that attempted to allocate the retainer among matters and to apply $2,700 to a new Sheridan County appeal, but he did not pursue the appeal or communicate adequately afterward.
Schmeets later claimed he never signed the original plea, and Schmeets had to file his own notice of appeal with new counsel representing him; the disciplinary panel found multiple rule violations.
The Disciplinary Board petitioned for discipline; the hearing panel recommended a one-year suspension, $2,700 restitution, and $8,653.95 in costs; this Court upheld and imposed the suspension, restitution, and costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Stensland affix Schmeets’s signature to the plea agreement without authorization?	Board contends yes; credibility issues support signing by deceit.	Stensland claims no memory of signing and suspects a family member may have held the document.	Yes; clear and convincing evidence shows he affixed or caused the signature.
Did Stensland mishandle unearned fees and fail to refund benefits?	Board argues unearned funds were mishandled and not properly refunded.	Stensland claims some portion was earned for appellate work or collateral matters.	Yes; mishandling funds and failure to refund unearned fees established.
Did Stensland fail to adequately communicate fee terms and conduct obligations?	Board asserts failure to communicate basis, rate, and amount of fees.	Stensland acknowledges limited written communication and poor availability.	Yes; violations of 1.5, 1.4, and 1.16 recognized.
Was there improper withdrawal and handling of client matters after August 18, 2008?	Board asserts improper withdrawal without proper communications and continuance of representation.	Stensland maintained withdrawal status but did not formally withdraw.	Yes; violated 1.16(e) and related duties.
Did sequestration-related conduct deny Stensland a fair hearing?	Board suggests no substantive sequestration violation.	Stensland alleges improper post-break witness communications under sequestration.	No reversible denial; no fundamental violation of fair hearing shown.

In re Askew, 2010 ND 7 (ND 2010) (deference to hearing panel on credibility; de novo review otherwise)
In re Kirschner, 2011 ND 8 (ND 2011) (pattern of misconduct; sanctions guided by standards)
Buchholz v. State, 2004 ND 77 (ND 2004) (sequestration rules; trial interruptions and witness access)