OLPR seeks more discipline against Michelle MacDonald

Listen to this article

The Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility announced Aug. 22 that it is seeking additional discipline of Michelle MacDonald, who already is indefinitely suspended and last year attempted to secure a seat on the Minnesota Supreme Court.

MacDonald’s disciplinary history dates back to 2012, when she received a private admonition for not depositing settlement proceeds into a trust account and not being responsible for the conduct of another lawyer, among other things. However, things took a turn in 2018, when she was suspended from the practice of law for 60 days.

MacDonald took issue with the conduct of Judge David Knutson, repeatedly interrupting proceedings and taking photographs of the courtroom. She was eventually escorted out in a wheelchair and handcuffs. After filing a federal lawsuit against Knutson, as well as reporting to the Board on Judicial Standards that Knutson had acted unethically, she was suspended for making “false statements about the integrity of a judge with reckless disregard for the truth.” Eventually, MacDonald was reinstated and placed on probation.

During probation, MacDonald, in an interview on WCCO Radio, made further comments about Knutson. She was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in June of 2021. Her petition for reinstatement has been denied.

But MacDonald, without an active law license, still attempted to run for election to the Minnesota Supreme Court, something she had done four times previously (though with an active law license). MacDonald’s candidacy was rejected by Secretary of State Steve Simon.

MacDonald contested the interpretation of language in the Minnesota Constitution that she be “learned in the law.” She argued that she was learned in the law, despite not having an active Minnesota law license.

“We have a constitutional right to run,” MacDonald said in a phone interview at the time. “It is a slippery slope, when you require a ‘Minnesota law license’ to be learned in the law. ‘Learned in the law’ has been equated with being an ‘attorney at law,’ meaning that you went to law school and have a law degree. But if you start to say, ‘Well, they have to have their Minnesota law license, as opposed to a Wisconsin one, or you say that they have to graduate top in their class,’ that feeds into that slippery slope where we have a constitutional right to hold office.”

However, judges empaneled by the Supreme Court to hear her appeal because all of the justices recused themselves found that an attorney with a suspended license is not “learned in the law.”

“Just like a disbarred lawyer, a suspended lawyer is not authorized to practice law in Minnesota,” wrote Court of Appeals Judge  Francis Connolly (acting chief justice). “Because MacDonald is currently suspended from practicing law in Minnesota, she is constitutionally ineligible to serve as a supreme court justice.”

Now, the OLPR has alleged four counts against MacDonald. One of the counts is “Dishonest Conduct Related to Election Certification.” MacDonald filled out an affidavit-of-candidacy form to seek election on the Minnesota Supreme Court. In it, she was required to affirm, “I am learned in the law and licensed to practice in Minnesota.”

“Respondent cannot attest to this statement because respondent’s law license was suspended, meaning that she was and is not licensed to practice law in Minnesota,” the petition reads.

However, MacDonald did sign the affidavit before a notary. The petition claims that MacDonald’s action represented that she had a license to practice law in Minnesota.

“Respondent’s signature on the affidavit of candidacy affirming that she was licensed to practice law in Minnesota was knowingly false and misleading due to her suspension in violation of Rule 8.4(c).”

Additionally, the OLPR asserts that MacDonald, who is a notary public whose notary remained effective until 2020, engaged in dishonest conduct related to a mortgage notary matter. It claims that she notarized a mortgage containing information she knew to be false.

The OLPR also asserts MacDonald engaged in dishonest conduct related to professional firm certification. C.F. was hired as an independent contractor with her law firm. Though C.F. was given the title of “managing attorney,” the OLPR asserts that the attorney’s duties did not include governance authority. “C.F.’s work for respondent’s firm was essentially the same as when respondent was not suspended,” the OLPR stated.

Finally, the OLPR claims that MacDonald was not cooperative with the OLPR director. Among other things, it requested information regarding the firm’s IOLTA account, 1099s for C.F., and compensation during the suspensions. According to the OLPR, this information has not been received.

In an email to Minnesota Lawyer regarding the current OLPR petition, MacDonald wrote, “The conduct of the OLPR and [Director] Susan Humiston constitutes targeted harassment and misuse of disciplinary power.

“More and more factual findings by judges are becoming the furthest thing from the truth of the matter. The fact that I am learned in the law was the truth.

“My legal knowledge and 36 years of experience did not disappear with the suspension of my license, which I assert has been retaliatory conduct by the OLPR from the onset, in response to protected free speech.”