In re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Richard A. Ohlsen

696 N.W.2d 786 (Minn. 2005) · Supreme Court of Minnesota · May 24, 2005 · No. A04-2432

Summary

The Supreme Court of Minnesota imposed professional discipline on attorney Richard A. Ohlsen for abandoning a client matter, failing to communicate, failing to disclose court-ordered sanctions, and failing to comply with discovery obligations. The court ordered a public reprimand, two years of supervised probation subject to specified conditions, and payment of $900 in costs.

Court
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Jurisdiction
Minnesota
Decision date
May 24, 2005
Docket number
A04-2432
Procedural posture
The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility petitioned for disciplinary action against Minnesota attorney Richard A. Ohlsen. Ohlsen stipulated to professional misconduct, waived his rights under Rule 14 of the Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility, and jointly recommended a public reprimand, two years of supervised probation, and costs.
Precedential value
Published precedential opinion
Parties
Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility v. Richard A. Ohlsen
Disposition
other

Topics

appellate procedure

Practice areas

legal ethicsattorney disciplineprofessional responsibility

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the stipulated professional misconduct warranted the jointly recommended discipline of a public reprimand, two years of supervised probation, and payment of $900 in costs.
  2. Whether more severe discipline was warranted after the court ordered the parties to brief the issue.

Holdings

  1. The recommended discipline was appropriate; Ohlsen was publicly reprimanded, placed on two years of supervised probation subject to the agreed conditions, and ordered to pay $900 in costs.

Key quotations

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: that respondent Richard A. Ohlsen is publicly reprimanded and placed on two years of supervised probation subject to the agreed-upon conditions set forth above. (788)

Factual background

Ohlsen abandoned a client matter, failed to respond to client communications, failed to inform a client about court-ordered sanctions, and failed to comply with discovery requests. His conduct resulted in dismissal of the client's case with prejudice and violated multiple Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct.

Procedural history

The Director filed the disciplinary petition on December 21, 2004. After the parties entered into a stipulation and joint recommendation, the Supreme Court ordered briefing on whether more severe discipline was warranted, heard oral argument, reviewed the record, and adopted the recommended discipline.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…