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

attorneylawyerprobatetrustrespondent

attorneytrustwillrespondent

Related Cases

In re Disciplinary Action Against Lochow, 469 N.W.2d 91

Facts

The respondent, a licensed attorney in Minnesota since 1982, was involved in the probate of the estate of Robert H. Peterson, who died in a plane crash. The decedent's wife, Susan Peterson, retained the law firm Gray & Lochow, where the respondent was a partner. Issues arose when the respondent withdrew funds from the firm's trust account without proper authorization or notification to Peterson, leading to allegations of misconduct regarding the handling of client funds and misrepresentations to the court and the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board.

Respondent has been licensed to practice law in Minnesota since 1982. After graduating from Jamestown College in 1968 and serving in the military for 3 years, respondent attended law school at the University of North Dakota where he graduated in 1974. He has been licensed to practice in North Dakota since July 1974. After working for various governmental agencies, respondent became a partner with William Gray, forming Gray & Lochow. They were partners from 1979 until 1982, when Gray began working for a life insurance company. Respondent is currently a sole practitioner in Fargo, North Dakota.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether the respondent violated professional responsibility rules regarding the handling of client funds and whether the appropriate disciplinary sanction was a six-month suspension.

The issue presented to us is the appropriate sanction for respondent's misconduct.

Rule

The court applied the rules that require advance payments for future services to be placed in a trust account, with withdrawals only permitted after providing the client with written notice and a complete accounting.

The primary purpose of attorney discipline is protection of the public.

Analysis

The court analyzed the respondent's actions in light of the established rules for handling client funds, noting that the respondent failed to provide proper notice and accounting for withdrawals from the trust account. The court found that the respondent's misrepresentations to both the court and the director of the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board further compounded the misconduct, demonstrating a lack of candor and transparency expected from attorneys.

The misconduct consisted of failing to advise the client properly when withdrawals of money for attorney fees and costs were being made and to explain, justify and give accountings thereof.

Conclusion

The court concluded that the respondent should be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law, with eligibility to petition for reinstatement after six months, due to the serious nature of the violations and the need to protect the public.

Accordingly, it is ordered by this court: 1. That, upon filing of this order, respondent is immediately indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in the State of Minnesota. He shall not be eligible to petition for reinstatement for a period of at least 6 months.

Who won?

The prevailing party was the director of the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board, as the court upheld the findings of misconduct and imposed a suspension on the respondent.

The referee found, however, that respondent believed that the CMA was a trust account at the time it was opened.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Flying J Inc. v. TA Operating Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2008 WL 648545

Jacobs v. Schiffer, 204 F.3d 259, 340 U.S.App.D.C. 221, 16 IER Cases 43

Sullivan v. Cuyler, 723 F.2d 1077

Board of Overseers of Bar v. Warren, 34 A.3d 1103, 2011 ME 124

Torrey v. Leesburg Regional Medical Center, 769 So.2d 1040, 25 Fla. L. Weekly S911