853 N.W.2d 539
N.D.2013Background
- Monty J. Stensland had prior disciplinary suspensions (60 days in 2007 and 2009) and was suspended for one year effective July 16, 2011, for multiple ethics violations including dishonesty, mishandling client funds, poor communication, and failing to return unearned fees.
- In August 2012 Stensland petitioned for reinstatement; an initial hearing panel recommended reinstatement conditioned on passing the ethics portion of the bar and six months monitoring.
- The Disciplinary Board moved to remand based on new information; the Supreme Court ordered remand.
- On remand the hearing panel found new evidence and inconsistent, false factual assertions by Stensland (notably about handling a $2,000 cashier’s check from Debra Pierson) and concluded he was not a "changed man." The panel recommended denial of reinstatement and assessed costs.
- The Supreme Court reviewed the record de novo, accorded due weight to the panel’s credibility findings, adopted the panel’s recommendation, denied reinstatement, and ordered payment of costs totaling $1773.31 and $3619.32.
Issues
| Issue | Stensland's Argument | Disciplinary Board's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stensland is fit for reinstatement (has the requisite honesty/integrity) | Stensland contends he has reformed and met the burden for reinstatement. | Board argues new evidence and inconsistent/false statements show lack of requisite honesty and that he has not been rehabilitated. | Denied — petition not proven by clear and convincing evidence; panel’s credibility findings dispositive. |
| Whether Stensland engaged in unauthorized practice of law when meeting Pierson and accepting $2,000 | Stensland says the meeting was mere intake; he did not represent her, did not solicit the check, and expected Omdahl firm to handle the matter. | Board asserts texts, statements about fees, an oral promise of representation, accepting a check payable to Stensland Law Firm, and failure to disclose suspension show attempted unauthorized practice. | Held that Stensland engaged or attempted to engage in unauthorized practice during suspension. |
| Whether Stensland made false statements about disposition of Pierson’s check | Stensland asserted he placed the cashier’s check in an intake file and returned it to Pierson. | Board produced evidence he cashed the check and later refunded via personal check; panel found his court filing false. | Held that Stensland made a false statement to the Court regarding the check. |
| Whether Stensland had a business relationship with Omdahl & Morgenstern sufficient to justify his actions | Stensland argues testimony shows the firm was handling his files and would take cases, implying authorization for his conduct. | Board notes testimony did not show the firm handled Pierson’s specific case or made payments to Stensland; lacks evidence of authorization. | Held that even if some relationship existed, there was no evidence the firm handled Pierson’s case; unauthorized practice stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- Application of Christianson, 202 N.W.2d 756 (N.D. 1972) (court’s power to reinstate and standard for entrusting office of attorney)
- Application of Christianson, 215 N.W.2d 920 (N.D. 1974) (burden of proof for reinstatement: clear and convincing evidence sufficient to overcome prior adverse judgment)
- Application of Christianson, 253 N.W.2d 410 (N.D. 1977) (reinstatement is not a matter of right)
- Hoffman v. Disciplinary Bd., 704 N.W.2d 810 (N.D. 2005) (standard of review and deference to hearing panel in reinstatement proceedings)
- Ellis v. Disciplinary Bd., 721 N.W.2d 693 (N.D. 2006) (de novo review with due weight to panel credibility findings)
- In re Montgomery, 612 N.W.2d 278 (N.D. 2000) (each reinstatement judged on its facts; deference to panel)
- In re Montgomery, 566 N.W.2d 426 (N.D. 1997) (same principle)
- Disciplinary Board v. Stensland, 799 N.W.2d 341 (N.D. 2011) (prior proceedings and suspension that led to current reinstatement petition)