Supreme Court Digest: July 2, 2020

Civil

Attorney Discipline

Suspension

The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed a petition for disciplinary action against respondent Daniel J. Moulton, alleging that he had violated the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to file and pay his taxes and failing to affirmatively report his tax compliance to the Director as required by the terms of his probation. Following an evidentiary hearing, the referee concluded that Moulton had violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. The referee recommended that Moulton be suspended from the practice of law for 90 days and that he be required to petition for reinstatement.

The Supreme Court held that a 90-day suspension with a requirement to petition for reinstatement was the appropriate discipline for respondent, who failed to remain current on tax obligations and failed to affirmatively report his tax compliance to the Director as required by the terms of his probation. Suspended.

A19-0444 In re Moulton (Original Jurisdiction)

Attorney Discipline

Suspension

The Director of the Office of Lawyers Responsibility filed a petition for disciplinary action against respondent Kent Frederick Strunk, alleging that Strunk violated Rule 8.4(b) of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct by committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.

The Supreme Court held that (1) in a case concerning intentional misconduct, the referee clearly erred by failing to make a finding regarding the severity of the psychological disorder alleged to be a mitigating factor; (2) an indefinite suspension with no right to petition for reinstatement for 5 years is the appropriate discipline, in this instance, for an attorney who pleaded guilty to felony possession of child pornography; and (3) although an attorney’s proactive efforts to mitigate harm to clients from the attorney’s misconduct may be considered when determining the appropriate discipline to impose, no credit will be applied for an attorney’s own decision to suspend the attorney’s practice. Suspension.

A19-0917 In re Strunk (Original Jurisdiction)

Attorney Discipline

Suspension

The sole issue here was the appropriate discipline to impose on respondent Ignatius Chukwuemeka Udeani for his wide-ranging misconduct that caused substantial harm to multiple clients. The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed a petition and a supplementary petition for disciplinary action against Udeani. Following a hearing, a referee found that Udeani committed numerous and varied acts of misconduct.

The Supreme Court held that an indefinite suspension with no right to petition for reinstatement for 3 years is the appropriate discipline for an attorney who committed wide-ranging misconduct causing substantial harm to multiple clients, including engaging in a pattern of incompetent representation, neglect, failure to communicate with clients, and failure to return unearned fees; failing to properly supervise a non-lawyer assistant and failing to take reasonable steps to prevent the known misconduct of the non-lawyer assistant that resulted in the theft of client funds; failing to safeguard client funds and maintain all trust-account related records; representing a client with a conflict of interest; and failing to cooperate in multiple disciplinary investigations. Suspended.

A18-2139 In re Udeani (Original Jurisdiction)

Wrongful Death

Statute of Limitations

At issue in this case was when a claim accrues in an asbestos-related wrongful death action. Appellant brought this wrongful death action against respondent after her husband died from mesothelioma. The District Court granted summary judgment for respondent, concluding that the statute of limitations barred appellant’s claim because she filed her action more than 6 years after her husband learned that exposure to asbestos had caused his mesothelioma. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

The Supreme Court held that, because appellant filed her wrongful death action more than 6 years after her husband learned that exposure to asbestos had caused his mesothelioma, Minn. Stat. § 573.02, subd. 1, barred her action. Affirmed.

A18-2114, A19-0155 Palmer v. Walker Jamar Co. (Court of Appeals)

Orders

General Rules of Practice

Amendments

The Supreme Court promulgated amendments to these rules to clarify the processing for submitting information containing confidential or non-public information, as well as amendments in the nature of housekeeping. The housekeeping amendments are effective as of September 1, 2020 and the rest of the amendments are effective January 1, 2021.

ADM09-8009 Order Promulgating Amends. to Gen. R. Prac. for Dist. Courts

Rules of Civil Procedure

Amendments

The Supreme Court promulgated amendments to the provisions of these rules governing submission of documents containing certain non-public or confidential information, the rule governing service of a summons and complaint by a sheriff, and the rule authorizing certified mail for certain process. The amendments to Rule 3.01 and Rule 67.02 are effective as of September 1, 2020, and amendments to Rule 5.04 are effective as of January 1, 2021.

ADM04-8001 Order Promulgating Amends. to R. Civ. Pro.

Rules of Public Access to Records of Judicial Branch

Amendments

The Supreme Court promulgated amendments to these rules to address issues presented by

the improper submission of confidential data in publicly accessible court records, proposed

substantive amendments to expand or refine the current public access to judicial branch

case records, and several proposed housekeeping amendments. The amendments are effective January 1, 2021.

ADM10-8050 Order Promulgating Amends. to Rules of Pub. Access to Records of Judicial Branch

Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals

Orders

The decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals in this matter was affirmed without opinion.

A20-0051 Williams v. Farmers Union Indus., LLC