Featured Chrome Extensions:

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

contractlawsuitlitigationattorneylawyerhearingrestitution
contractlawsuitlitigationattorneylawyerhearingrestitution

Related Cases

Nordling v. Northern States Power Co., 478 N.W.2d 498, 60 USLW 2406, 124 Lab.Cas. P 57,260, 7 IER Cases 10
View Case »
State Compensation Ins. Fund v. WPS, Inc., 70 Cal.App.4th 644, 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 799, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1695, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2149
View Case »
Nordling v. Northern States Power Co., 478 N.W.2d 498, 60 USLW 2406, 124 Lab.Cas. P 57,260, 7 IER Cases 10
View Case »
Patton v. Turnage, 260 Ga.App. 744, 580 S.E.2d 604, 03 FCDR 1135
View Case »
South Carolina Dept. of Social Services v. Tharp, 312 S.C. 243, 439 S.E.2d 854
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re Disciplinary Action Against Giese, 662 N.W.2d 250, 2003 ND 82

Facts

Brian Giese, an attorney admitted to practice law in North Dakota since 1980, was involved in a land transaction with clients Wilmer and Alma Conitz. After advising them to seek independent counsel in 1989, Giese later obtained a warranty deed from Alma Conitz in 2000 without advising her to seek legal advice again. The deed falsely stated that full payment had been made under a contract for deed, which had not been the case. This led to a lawsuit from Alma Conitz, resulting in Giese's eventual acknowledgment of the need to reconvey the property.

Giese was admitted to practice law in North Dakota on October 6, 1980. In 1989, Giese, his wife, and his parents entered into a contract for deed to purchase land from Wilmer and Alma Conitz. Giese was then representing Wilmer and Alma Conitz in a separate dispute regarding the land. In April 1989, Giese advised Wilmer and Alma Conitz in writing that he could not represent them in a legal capacity in the sale of the land and recommended they seek independent counsel regarding the transaction. In May 1989, Wilmer and Alma Conitz executed a contract for deed to sell the land to the Gieses. The contract for deed required the Gieses to make monthly payments to Wilmer and Alma Conitz for eighteen years, and the Gieses have never defaulted on any payments due under the contract for deed.

Issue

Did Brian Giese violate the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct in his dealings with Alma Conitz, and was the recommended 90-day suspension appropriate?

Did Brian Giese violate the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct in his dealings with Alma Conitz, and was the recommended 90-day suspension appropriate?

Rule

The court applied the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.8 (prohibited transactions), 3.1 (meritorious claims), 3.2 (expediting litigation), and 8.4(e) (misconduct), along with N.D.R. Lawyer Discipl. 1.2(A)(3) regarding dishonesty and misrepresentation.

The court applied the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.8 (prohibited transactions), 3.1 (meritorious claims), 3.2 (expediting litigation), and 8.4(e) (misconduct), along with N.D.R. Lawyer Discipl. 1.2(A)(3) regarding dishonesty and misrepresentation.

Analysis

The court found that Giese's failure to advise Alma Conitz to seek independent counsel when obtaining the warranty deed constituted a violation of the rules governing prohibited transactions. The evidence showed that Giese had an ongoing attorney-client relationship with Alma Conitz, and his actions in recording the warranty deed misrepresented the status of the contract for deed. Additionally, Giese's defense in the subsequent lawsuit was deemed frivolous, prolonging litigation unnecessarily.

The court found that Giese's failure to advise Alma Conitz to seek independent counsel when obtaining the warranty deed constituted a violation of the rules governing prohibited transactions. The evidence showed that Giese had an ongoing attorney-client relationship with Alma Conitz, and his actions in recording the warranty deed misrepresented the status of the contract for deed. Additionally, Giese's defense in the subsequent lawsuit was deemed frivolous, prolonging litigation unnecessarily.

Conclusion

The court upheld the hearing panel's recommendation, concluding that Giese's conduct warranted a 90-day suspension from the practice of law, along with restitution and costs.

The court upheld the hearing panel's recommendation, concluding that Giese's conduct warranted a 90-day suspension from the practice of law, along with restitution and costs.

Who won?

The North Dakota Supreme Court prevailed in the case, affirming the hearing panel's findings and recommendations based on clear evidence of Giese's violations of professional conduct rules.

The North Dakota Supreme Court prevailed in the case, affirming the hearing panel's findings and recommendations based on clear evidence of Giese's violations of professional conduct rules.

You must be