Minnesota Lawyer
Civil
Attorney Discipline
Disbarment
The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed a petition for disciplinary action against respondent Ignatius Chukwuemeka Udeani. The petition alleged that Udeani breached his ethical duties to five clients, three of whom were vulnerable immigrants, including by misappropriating client funds and providing incompetent representation, and then did not cooperate with the Director’s investigations into those activities. After a hearing, the referee concluded that Udeani committed the alleged misconduct and that multiple aggravating factors were present, including Udeani’s extensive experience as a lawyer, long discipline history, lack of remorse, and the vulnerable nature of his clients who were harmed. The referee found no mitigating factors. The referee recommended that Udeani be disbarred.
The Supreme Court held that disbarment is the appropriate discipline for an attorney with a significant disciplinary history who engaged in serious and prolonged misconduct across multiple matters that harmed vulnerable clients and who failed to cooperate with the Director’s investigations. Disbarred.
A21-0754 In re Udeani (Original Jurisdiction)
Attorney Discipline
Suspension
The sole issue in this case was the appropriate discipline to impose on respondent Larry Laver for his wide-ranging misconduct. The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed a petition and a supplementary petition for disciplinary action against Laver alleging misconduct in five client matters. Following a hearing, a referee concluded that Laver violated 19 different rules of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, 9 of them more than once, and 1 rule of the Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR). Laver’s misconduct involved misrepresentations to clients, courts, and disciplinary investigators, client neglect, disobedience of court orders, collection of improper fees, advising a client despite a conflict of interest, engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and failing to cooperate in multiple disciplinary investigations. The referee also found multiple aggravating factors and no mitigating factors.
The Supreme Court held that an indefinite suspension with no right to petition for reinstatement for 8 months is the appropriate discipline for an attorney who committed wide ranging misconduct, including misrepresentations to clients and courts, client neglect, disobedience of court orders, collection of improper fees, advising a client despite a conflict of interest, engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and failing to cooperate in multiple disciplinary investigations. Suspended.
A21-1532 In re Laver (Original Jurisdiction)
Criminal
Postconviction Relief
Time Bar
This case presented the issue of whether the District Court abused its discretion when it summarily denied appellant’s eighth postconviction petition as untimely based on its determination that the statements in the affidavit of one of his codefendants failed to satisfy the time bar exception for newly discovered evidence. Following a jury trial, appellant was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder under an aiding and abetting theory of liability based on his involvement in the 1992 shooting death of a police officer. This was appellant’s eighth postconviction petition. The petition invoked the time-bar exception for newly discovered evidence, relying on an affidavit of one of appellant’s codefendants. In his affidavit, codefendant alleged that although appellant was present during a pre-shooting gathering, there was no plan among the codefendants to shoot a police officer and codefendant acted alone when he shot the officer. The District Court summarily denied appellant’s petition as untimely based on its determination that the statements in affidavit were not newly discovered. Appellant argued that the District Court abused its discretion when it summarily denied his postconviction petition.
The Supreme Court held that, even when viewed in a light most favorable to appellant, the statements in the affidavit of his codefendant failed to satisfy the time-bar exception for newly discovered evidence because appellant was present during the relevant events described in the affidavit, and therefore it was not an abuse of discretion for the District Court to summarily deny appellant’s eighth postconviction petition. Affirmed.
A22-0304 El-Shabazz v. State (Hennepin County)
