Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneylawyerhearingobjectionrestitution

Related Cases

In re Disciplinary Action Against Edin, 697 N.W.2d 727, 2005 ND 109

Facts

Charles T. Edin, an attorney admitted to practice in North Dakota since 1984, was placed on interim suspension on September 24, 2003, due to violations of professional conduct rules. A hearing panel found that Edin failed to act diligently in representing clients, did not communicate effectively, and abruptly withdrew from representing a client. Edin admitted to these violations, attributing his actions to personal issues and depression. The hearing panel recommended a six-month suspension, but the Disciplinary Counsel objected, seeking a longer suspension and restitution.

Charles Edin was admitted to practice as an attorney at law in the courts of North Dakota on April 16, 1984, and his name has appeared since that date on the roll of attorneys admitted to the North Dakota Bar, as maintained by the Supreme Court. Edin was placed on interim suspension from the practice of law on September 24, 2003, under Rule 3.4(b), N.D.R. Lawyer Discipl.

Issue

What is the appropriate disciplinary sanction for attorney Charles T. Edin given his violations of professional conduct rules, and should he be required to pay restitution to his clients?

Rule

The court applied the North Dakota Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, considering factors such as the duty violated, the lawyer's mental state, potential injury caused by the misconduct, and any aggravating or mitigating factors.

In determining the appropriate sanctions for violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, we are guided by the North Dakota Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions.

Analysis

The court reviewed the hearing panel's findings and the objections raised by the Disciplinary Counsel. It determined that Edin's violations warranted a suspension longer than the six months recommended by the panel, given the seriousness of his misconduct. However, the court found no clear evidence that Edin's actions resulted in a monetary loss to his clients, thus denying the request for restitution.

Conclusion

The court ordered Charles T. Edin to be suspended from the practice of law for approximately 20 months, from his interim suspension date to the date of the opinion, and required him to pay the costs and attorney's fees for the disciplinary proceedings.

We order that Charles T. Edin be suspended from the practice of law for the term beginning with his September 24, 2003, interim suspension to the date this opinion is filed and that he pay the costs and attorney's fees for the disciplinary proceedings of $1,738.51.

Who won?

The Disciplinary Counsel prevailed in part, as the court imposed a longer suspension than the hearing panel recommended, but did not require restitution.

The Disciplinary Counsel objected to the hearing panel's recommendation, arguing Edin be suspended from the practice of law for two years, with credit for time served under interim suspension; Edin be required to pay restitution to certain former clients in the total amount of $20,000; and Edin be required to pay the costs and attorney's fees for the disciplinary proceeding.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Goldston v. American Motors Corp., 326 N.C. 723, 392 S.E.2d 735

Reyes v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 991 F.Supp.2d 20

Phil Watson, P.C. v. Peterson, 650 N.W.2d 562

Fiandaca v. Cunningham, 827 F.2d 825, 56 USLW 2190, 8 Fed.R.Serv.3d 858

In re Hall County Grand Jury Proceedings, 175 Ga.App. 349, 333 S.E.2d 389