Summary
The Minnesota Supreme Court indefinitely suspended Stanley H. Nathanson from practicing law for a minimum of 90 days based on repeated client neglect, failure to comply with appellate and tribunal requirements, frivolous or unmeritorious appeals, and failure to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation. The court required a Rule 18 reinstatement hearing, completion of a professional responsibility examination and continuing legal education requirements, proof of moral change and fitness, compliance with suspension-notice requirements, and payment of $900 in costs.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Rule 8(a) of the Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility permitted the Director to investigate misconduct beyond the allegations in the originating client complaint.
- Whether Nathanson's refusal to cooperate with the Director's investigation was excused because he disputed the Director's authority.
- What discipline was appropriate for Nathanson's multiple violations of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct and the Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility.
Holdings
- When an investigation is initiated pursuant to a complaint, Rule 8(a), RLPR, does not prohibit the Director from investigating matters not specifically raised in that complaint, provided the Director reasonably believes that additional professional misconduct may have occurred and does not unduly expand the investigation into matters not reasonably related to the original complaint.
- When no transcript of the evidentiary hearing is ordered, the referee's factual findings and conclusions drawn from those facts are conclusive.
- Indefinite suspension for a minimum of 90 days, with a Rule 18 reinstatement hearing and specified reinstatement conditions, was appropriate for Nathanson's repeated client neglect, failure to comply with court rules and orders, failure to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation, and aggravating circumstances.
Key quotations
“The “provided, however” clause of Rule 8(a) applies to investigations commenced upon the sole initiative of the Director without a complaint.” (812 N.W.2d at 77)
“When no transcript of an evidentiary hearing is ordered, however, the referee’s factual findings and conclusions drawn from those facts are conclusive.” (812 N.W.2d at 78)
“The purpose of discipline for professional misconduct is not to punish the attorney but to protect the public and the judicial system, and to deter future misconduct by the disciplined attorney and other attorneys.” (812 N.W.2d at 79)
“We conclude that the recommended discipline is consistent with our prior cases involving similar misconduct, and is therefore appropriate.” (812 N.W.2d at 81)
Factual background
Nathanson repeatedly mishandled client matters between 2003 and 2009, including failing to communicate with clients, comply with filing requirements and court orders, pursue appeals competently, and protect clients' interests. His conduct caused appeals to be dismissed, resulted in sanctions and forfeiture of a client's vehicle, and caused other adverse consequences. He also failed to cooperate with the Director's disciplinary investigation by not timely responding to requests for information and refusing later requests.
Procedural history
The Director filed the disciplinary petition in April 2010. Nathanson generally admitted the allegations, moved to dismiss three counts, and obtained a continuance conditioned on temporary suspension of his Minnesota law license. The referee held an evidentiary hearing on April 1, 2011; Nathanson did not appear or present evidence. The referee issued findings, conclusions, and a disciplinary recommendation, which the Supreme Court adopted after rejecting Nathanson's challenges to the Director's investigative authority and his alleged justification for refusing to cooperate.