Dissent: ‘Derisive’ attorney deserved harsher discipline

Listen to this article

The Minnesota Supreme Court recently publicly reprimanded Minnesota attorney Daniel Gallatin. Three members of the court dissented, arguing that Gallatin should have been suspended from the practice of law for a minimum for 30 days due to his treatment of unrepresented parties and fraudulent conduct upon the court.

Gallatin was admitted to practice law in Minnesota in 2007. He is attorney at Gallatin Law, practicing in business law, estate planning, litigation, and real estate. Gallatin has faced discipline before. In 2018, Gallatin was admonished for failing to timely return a client’s original documents, violating Minnesota Rules of Profession Conduct 1.15(c)(4) and 1.16(d).

The current discipline arose out of a conciliation court matter in 2019. Homeowners filed a claim regarding water damage against the couple that they purchased the home from in the amount of $13,862. The couple hired Gallatin to represent them; the homeowners were pro se. A conciliation hearing was heard, and the court determined that Gallatin’s clients owed $10,265.19.

Gallatin offered to settle the claim with the homeowners for $3,000. He emailed the homeowners, “I hope you’re not too excited about the conciliation court judgment. Your sympathetic story lacks legal merit. In district court, where there are actual rules of evidence and law that apply, you will lose.”

The parties eventually agreed to settle for $9,000. However, Gallatin asked the homeowners to draft settlement papers. They had difficulties sending a PDF, so the homeowners sent a picture of the document. Gallatin responded, “RYAN-FIGURE OUT HOW TO CREAT [sic] A PDF. MOST HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS CAN DO THAT. CREATE A PDF. EMAIL A PDF. PICTURES FROM YOUR PHONE ARE A JOKE.”

Nothing happened in the case for about a month. Gallatin contacted homeowners on Sept. 17, 2019, and informed them that, “It seems your incompetence and lack of integrity know no boundaries. A stipulation for dismissal with prejudice is being filed today with your signatures.” The homeowners never responded to the email or agreed to the action. Gallatin went ahead and e-filed a stipulation to vacate judgment and dismissal with the Anoka District Court with the electronic signatures of the homeowners.

The homeowners confronted Gallatin about what they perceived as forged signatures on the settlement documents. They moved to vacate the stipulation to vacate judgment and dismissal, which was granted. In her order, Judge Jenny Walker Jasper found that Gallatin committed “intrinsic fraud, misrepresentation and fraud upon the Court.”

The homeowners then filed a police report with the Anoka County Sheriff’s office against Gallatin, alleging fraud and forgery related to the unauthorized signatures. Gallatin was found not guilty of the charges after a jury trial in December 2021.

In March 2023, the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed disciplinary charges against Gallatin. Gallatin and the OLPR director entered into a stipulation for discipline, and they jointly recommended that the appropriate discipline was a public reprimand. The majority gave deference to the referee’s findings and significant weight to the referee’s recommendation.

Justice Anne McKeig, joined by Justices Gordon Moore and Paul Thissen, maintained that Gallatin should be suspended for a minimum of 30 days, however. McKeig, who characterized Gallatin’s conduct as “derisive and belittling” as well as “petty and childish,” stated that he chose to “antagonize and belittle” the pro se plaintiffs. “His fraudulent behavior wasted the court’s valuable time and cast a pall on the judicial system and the trustworthiness of its officers,” McKeig wrote.

Nor were the justices persuaded by any mitigant factors. “Mitigating factors such as Gallatin now being more polite in his emails and not billing his clients for the extra work — which he, himself created — simply do not tip the scales in favor of a lesser discipline,” McKeig asserted.

“This misconduct is far more egregious than cases where mitigating factors have warranted a lesser discipline. Allowing the mitigating factors to lessen the imposed discipline here seems to ignore the unique facts of this case for the sake of tenuous consistency,” McKeig wrote.

Related:

Misappropriation of clients’ money prompts disbarment of St. Paul lawyer

Sexual relationship with client draws discipline in Iowa and Minnesota

Court suspends lawyer who has been disciplined 14 times since ’79