Thorson v. State
2012 ND 109
| N.D. | 2012Background
- Summers faced disciplinary action for alleged violations of N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.3 and 1.4(a)(3) and (4) regarding a daytime child support matter for Erik Doll.
- Doll retained Summers for $850 to modify a child support order; Summers accepted and negotiated the retainer.
- Doll sent the retainer and later sought status updates; Summers and staff largely failed to respond or timely communicate.
- Summers returned Doll’s $850 after Doll decided not to proceed with the modification; this preceded formal disciplinary proceedings.
- Hearing panel found violations and recommended costs of $4,648.36 and a six‑month, one‑day suspension stayed for one year with conditions including LAP participation; the Supreme Court adopted and issued the stay and probationary order.
- The stay and probation commenced August 1, 2012, coordinating with related disciplinary cases 20120022 and 20120023.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Summers violated 1.3 and 1.4(a)(3)-(4). | Doll’s undisputed testimony showed neglect and poor communication. | Summer’s depression and medical records explained, not excuses, but mitigated conduct. | Yes; violations established. |
| Whether Summers’ mental health mitigates sanction. | No expert causation shown; mitigation improper. | Depression causally related to misconduct, warranting leniency. | Mitigation accepted; sanction stayed with probation. |
| Whether the suspension should be stayed for a probationary period. | Stay not warranted given misconduct history. | Probation appropriate to allow rehabilitation. | Suspension stayed for one year probation. |
| Whether Summers must pay disciplinary costs within 60 days. | Costs reasonable and properly assessed. | Costs should be waived or paid over time. | Costs awarded; due within 60 days. |
| What are the conditions of the stay and probation. | Standard conditions suffice. | LAP participation and probation terms needed. | Probation conditions including LAP compliance adopted. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Disciplinary Action Against Rau, 533 N.W.2d 691 (ND 1995) (mitigation requires causal connection between disability and misconduct)
- In re Disciplinary Action Against Edin, 697 N.W.2d 727 (ND 2005) (de novo review; consideration of standards and sanctions)
- In re Disciplinary Action Against Howe, 626 N.W.2d 650 (ND 2001) (reasonableness of costs; prior mere admonitions; standard for sanctions)