Quantcast
Don't Miss
Home / MinnLawyer Blog / Attorney Jill Clark suspended
Clark did not respond to Supreme Court Order to Show Cause

Attorney Jill Clark suspended

Controversial attorney Jill Clark has been suspended from the practice of law pending briefing on a referee’s Dec. 20 recommendation that she be transferred to disability inactive status due to disability.

The action results from a petition for discipline filed on Feb. 23, 2012. The matter was scheduled for an evidentiary hearing but Clark was hospitalized shortly before the hearing. The referee at that time recommended her transfer to disability status.  In October, the Supreme Court sent the matter back to the referee for findings regarding the nature of Clark’s disability, whether Clark was able to assist in her defense in this matter, and whether Clark was able to competently represent clients.

On December 20, 2012, the referee filed his findings and recommendations with the court. The referee found that: Clark is disabled based on serious mental health issues she experienced during 2012; Clark was able to assist in her defense as of December 7, 2012,as evidenced by her participation at the evidentiary hearing; and as of December 7, 2012,and continuing into the foreseeable future, Clark cannot competently represent clients.

The referee further recommended that: (1) Clark be transferred to disability inactive status because she cannot presently represent clients; (2) the underlying disciplinary action be stayed; and (3) if Clark is not placed on disability inactive status, that her ability to practice law be subject to several conditions.

In a December 26, 2012, filing, Clark stated that she was ordering transcripts but no certificates were filed.  The Supreme Court issued an order to show case requiring the parties to file memoranda of law by Jan. 11, 2013 stating why Clark should not be suspended until the court reaches a decision. Clark did not respond.

Accordingly the court suspended Clark and established a schedule for filing transcripts and briefs. No oral argument was set.

Meanwhile, Clark filed a two-page document in federal court asking the court to reconsider keeping her discipline case in federal court. She also asked for a writ of certiorari to get her files from the Minnesota Judicial Branch, and that her document be considered as a complaint against Martin Cole and Craig Klausing of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility.

2 comments

  1. So let me understand this…As of Dec. 7th Jill Clark can’t competently represent clients, according to the referee…but on Dec. 11th the MN Supreme Court saw Jill Clark represent a client on a constitutional challenge to the 50 year restraining order law in which some of the Judges said that they agreed with her. On one issue the judges asked the same question at least 4 times, which was to the effect: “So, let me get this straight, there has been no allegations, charges, or complaints that the appellant has abused his children.” To which the answer was at all times that that was correct. Hmmm. Who has the mental disability hear. Asked and answered a number of times. Did the court get it?

    Did the SC not see her work? Are they ignoring the facts before their own eyes? Or, is this just a political prosecution because Jill Clark has been vocal with the problems of the courts, some even criminal?

    Why did the SC only give a short time to respond to the referees findings?
    Why hasn’t the SC answered the motions for recusal of all the justices by Jill Clark. Isn’t this motion required to be answered before the hearings? Why have the jurisdiction motions not been answered? Isn’t this required before the hearings take place? Or is the SC above the law and the rules?

  2. Jill Clark is one of the most gallant and capable lawyers in Minnesota. I think I can assess the quality of a lawyer, because I have been one 46 years, including service as a public defender, public prosecutor, and law professor. Jill is on “disability” status, because she has asked for judicial reform. That’s the real story in a nutshell. — John Remington Graham of the Minnesota Bar (#3664X)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Scroll To Top