In re Disciplinary Action Against McCray

Summary

The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed disciplinary proceedings arising from Loren C. McCray's operation of a credit-repair law practice. The court found clear and convincing evidence that McCray violated multiple professional-conduct and lawyer-discipline rules, including rules concerning unreasonable fees, misrepresentation, solicitation, unauthorized practice, and fee sharing with a nonlawyer. The court ordered a six-month-and-one-day suspension and assessment of disciplinary proceeding costs.

Holdings

1. McCray violated N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.5 by charging a $590 fee over ten months for minimal legal work and by collecting recurring fees before credit-repair services were fully performed.
2. McCray violated N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 4.1 by knowingly authorizing form letters that falsely purported to be written and sent by clients and contained false or misleading statements about credit-report entries.
3. McCray violated N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 7.3(a) by sponsoring seminars that targeted vulnerable prospective clients and arranging for representatives to sell Bradley Ross Law's legal services for pecuniary gain.
4. McCray violated N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(c) and (f) and N.D.R. Lawyer Discipl. 1.2A(3) and (8) because his solicitation, fee practices, and use of dishonest and misleading dispute letters adversely reflected on his fitness and prejudiced the administration of justice.
5. McCray violated N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(g) and N.D.C.C. § 27-14-02(7) because his conduct tended to bring reproach upon the legal profession.
6. McCray violated N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 5.5(e) by assisting leased Indiana employees in performing legal work under his license without adequate supervision.
7. McCray violated N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 5.4(a) by sharing legal fees with Bellwether, Inc., or its affiliates.
8. A suspension of six months and one day, rather than the hearing panel's recommended 120-day suspension, was appropriate, together with payment of disciplinary costs.

Questions Presented

1. Whether clear and convincing evidence established that McCray charged unreasonable fees in violation of N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.5.
2. Whether McCray violated N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 4.1 by authorizing false or misleading statements in dispute letters sent to credit-reporting agencies.
3. Whether McCray violated N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 7.3(a) by using sponsored seminars and representatives to solicit prospective clients for pecuniary gain.
4. Whether McCray violated N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(c) and (f) and N.D.R. Lawyer Discipl. 1.2A(3) and (8) through dishonest, misleading, and administration-of-justice-prejudicial conduct.
5. Whether McCray violated N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(g) and N.D.C.C. § 27-14-02(7) by engaging in conduct tending to bring reproach upon the legal profession.
6. Whether McCray assisted nonlawyers in the unauthorized practice of law in violation of N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 5.5(e).
7. Whether McCray improperly shared legal fees with a nonlawyer in violation of N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 5.4(a).
8. What sanction was appropriate for the established violations.

Disposition

other