The Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board (LPRB) petitioned this court for disciplinary action against respondent Robert J. Tieso, charging him with one count of unprofessional conduсt. We assigned the petition to a referee for a full hearing pursuant to Rule 14 of the Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR). The referee submitted his findings of fact, conclusions of lаw and a recommendation to this court. Pursuant to RLPR 14(d), respondent ordered a transcript of the proceedings and challenges several of the referee’s findings, which we shall summаrize before addressing respondent’s arguments.
Respondent and Barbara Tieso, now Barbara Swenson, were divorced in January 1980. Since 1981, respondent and Mrs. Swenson have been involved in “numerous and protracted post-decree custody and support actions in Ramsey County District Court.” In the fall of 1982, respondent moved to California and stopped pаying support. He returned to Minnesota in late 1983 and was able to have the unpaid support forgiven and have the child support reduced. Respondent requested evidentia-ry hеarings for change of custody in late 1983 and June 1984, but both motions were denied. In November 1984, the district court granted Barbara Swenson’s request for an increase in child support. One month latеr, respondent filed an action in United States District Court on behalf of his current wife Peggy Tieso, seeking $45 million in damages. Peggy Tieso was involved at the time in “an acrimonious post-decree custody dispute” with her ex-husband Duane Hansen. The lawsuit named Hansen, Hennepin County, Hennepin County *33 Court Services and several of its employees as defendants, alleging they cоnspired to deprive Peggy Tieso of her constitutional rights. The suit also named Barbara Swenson and her husband Fred (the Swen-sons) as defendants. The Swensons moved to dismiss the complaint and rеcover costs and attorney fees.
The federal district court granted the Swensons’ motion. That court’s order stated:
The Court is especially disturbed by plaintiff’s inclusion of the Swensons in thе lawsuit. * * * The Swensons’ connection to this action is that Barbara Swenson is the former wife of plaintiff’s attorney, and current husband, Robert Tieso. * * * The Court finds that plaintiff’s naming the Swensons as defеndants in this action was vexatious, frivolous, and an attempt to harass and embarrass the Swensons. The Court will therefore award the Swensons their costs and reasonable attorneys [siс] fees * * *. The Court also finds that by adding the Swensons as defendants to this action, attorney Robert Tieso unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied the proceedings. Therefore, Robert Tiеso will also be personally responsible for the Swensons’ cost and reasonable attorneys’ fees * *.
Following these actions, the LPRB initiated disciplinary proceedings.
The rеferee found that respondent has not paid the attorney fees awarded by the federal district court and has “circumvented all of the Swensons’ efforts to collect the court’s judgment.” The referee also determined that the allegations against the Swensons in the lawsuit were groundless, frivolous and unwarranted under existing law, and that respondent made no goоd faith argument for extension, modification or reversal of law. The referee found that as a result of the lawsuit, the Swensons suffered anxiety, inconvenience and added expenses. The referee concluded that respondent violated Minn.Code of Prof.Resp. DR 7-102(A)(l) and DR 7-102(A)(2). He recommended a 3-month suspension with reinstatement dependent on respondеnt fulfilling certain conditions. Respondent contests the referee’s findings and conclusions.
In support of his contentions, respondent cites numerous factual allegations not prеsented to the referee and therefore not in the record. Respondent did submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the referee but statements made in those documents were not under oath nor supported by evidence in the record.
Respondent urges this court to closely read the federal complaint to determine thе merits of the lawsuit against the Swensons. Respondent is essentially requesting this court to review the federal district court’s finding that the lawsuit was vexatious and frivolous with respect to the Swensons. We decline to do so.
The evidence in the record supports the referee’s findings of fact. Barbara Swen-son testified as to the numerous custody and support actions between her and respondent. The federal lawsuit filed by respondent and the federal district court order were also part of the record and support the conclusion that the lawsuit filed by respondent against the Swensons was unwarranted and vexatious.
We must next determine if respondent’s actions constitute a violation of DR 7-102(A)(1) and DR 7-102(A)(2). Those rules state:
(A) In his representation of a client, a lawyer shall not:
(1) File a suit, assert a position, conduct a defense, delay a trial, or take other action on behalf of his client when he knows or when it is obvious that such action would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure another.
(2) Knowingly advance a claim or defense that is unwarranted under existing law, except that he may advance such claim or defense if it can be suрported by good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.
*34
In determining if respondent violated DR 7-102(A)(l) and DR 7-102(A)(2), this case presents its own unique circumstances, althоugh prior cases are helpful by analogy.
See In re Serstock,
We must now determine the appropriate discipline to be invoked for respondent’s misconduct. Respondent asserts that no discipline is warranted because the misconduct was an isоlated incident, citing to our decision of
In re Hoffman,
The referee recommended а 3-month suspension with reinstatement conditioned upon specific requirements. While this court alone is responsible for determining appropriate discipline, we place great weight on the referee’s recommendations.
In re Pearson,
In previous cases decided by this court, the discipline imposed on the attorney for filing a frivolous. suit was much more severe than the 3 months rеcommended by the referee in this case.
See In re Tymiak,
We order the following sanctions:
1. Robert J. Tieso will be and hereby is suspended from the practice of law indefinitely, commencing from the date of this judgment;
2. Robert J. Tieso may not apply for reinstatement to the practice of law until at least 3 months have passed from the date of suspension;
3. After at least 3 months have passed, Robеrt J. Tieso may apply for reinstatement to the practice of law, provided he has met the following conditions:
a. That he has paid to Barbara and Fred Swenson all costs and attorney fees *35 awarded by the federal district court in dismissing the civil suit (Civil File No. 4-84-1305) against the Swensons;
b. That he reimburse the Swensons in an amount determined by the Director of the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board to have been reasonably incurred by the Swensons under this disciplinary proceeding;
c. That he pay $500 to the LPRB pursuant to RLPR rule 24(a); and
d. That he submit proof of having satisfied RLPR Rules 18(e) and 26.