Justia Legal Ethics Opinion Summaries

In Minnesota, a district court removed Brian Lipschultz as a trustee from the Otto Bremer Trust. This decision was based on his violation of Minnesota Statutes section 501C.0706(b)(1), which allows for the removal of a trustee for a “serious breach of trust.” The breaches included Lipschultz's misuse of trust resources for personal purposes, offensive behavior during a stock dispute, manipulation of a grantee, and failure to disclose his successor. Lipschultz appealed this decision, arguing that the district court and court of appeals applied an incorrect legal standard for removal and that they abused their discretion in removing him under section 501C.0706(b)(1). However, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals, stating that the district court did not abuse its broad discretion when it determined that Lipschultz committed “a serious breach of trust” under section 501C.0706(b)(1). The court concluded that Lipschultz breached the duty of loyalty and the duty of information, demonstrating a pattern of placing his personal priorities over the duties he owed to the Trust. View "In the Matter of the Otto Bremer Trust" on Justia Law

In a case heard by the Supreme Court of Minnesota, the defendant, Christian Portillo, was charged with two counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct. During the trial, the prosecutor elicited testimony from the State’s witnesses regarding evidence that the district court had previously ruled as inadmissible. The defendant's motion for a mistrial was denied by the district court. During the closing-argument rebuttal, the prosecutor told the jury that the defendant no longer held the presumption of innocence based on the evidence presented during the trial. The defendant did not object to this statement. The jury found the defendant guilty of one count of second-degree criminal sexual conduct.The defendant appealed, arguing that he was denied a fair trial due to prosecutorial errors committed by the State. The court of appeals affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that the prosecutor's misstatement of the law did not affect the defendant's substantial rights.Upon review, the Supreme Court of Minnesota reversed the decision of the court of appeals. The Supreme Court found that the prosecutor’s misstatement of the law during the closing-argument rebuttal was a plain error that affected the defendant’s substantial rights. The court held that the defendant is entitled to a new trial as the error must be addressed to ensure the fairness and integrity of the judicial proceedings. View "State of Minnesota vs. Portillo" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court that Appellant could not enforce the contract between Appellant and Respondent whereby Appellant purchased an interest in Respondent's personal injury suit because it violated Minnesota's common law prohibition against champerty, holding that Minnesota's common-law prohibition against champerty is abolished.When Respondent settled her suit and did not abide by the terms of the contract, Appellant sued to enforce the contract. Both the district court and the court of Appeals held that Appellant could not enforce the agreement against Respondent because Minnesota law applied to the agreement and the agreement violated Minnesota's common-law prohibition against champerty. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) because the contract was champertous the lower courts did not err in determining that, under prior decisions, the contract was unenforceable; but (2) changes in the legal profession and in society show that the ancient prohibition against champerty is no longer necessary. View "Maslowski v. Prospect Funding Partners LLC" on Justia Law

In a reciprocal discipline case, the identical discipline in Minnesota to “exclusion from practice” before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is an indefinite suspension from the practice of law with no right to petition for reinstatement for a minimum of five years.In this case, the USPTO imposed on Alan Stewart, a Minnesota attorney, what its regulations call “exclusion from practice” for misappropriating unearned fees, among other things. The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility petitioned to impose reciprocal discipline in Minnesota and argued that the identical discipline in Minnesota was disbarment. The Supreme Court indefinitely suspended Stewart with no right to petition for reinstatement for a minimum of five years, holding that the USPTO’s discipline procedures were fundamentally fair and that a five-year suspension would not be unjust or substantially different from the discipline warranted in Minnesota. View "In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Alan Richard Stewart" on Justia Law

The Minnesota Board on Judicial Standards brought a formal complaint against Hon. Alan F. Pendleton, Judge of the District Court of the Tenth Judicial District, alleging that Pendleton violated the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Minnesota Constitution. A panel appointed by the Supreme Court concluded that Judge Pendleton violated several sections of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Minn. Const. art. VI, 4 and recommended that the judge be censured and suspended from judicial office without pay for at least six months. Judge Pendleton appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Board proved by clear and convincing evidence that Judge Pendleton failed to reside within his judicial district during his continuation in office and that he made a knowingly false statement regarding his residency in his affidavit of candidacy; (2) Judge Pendleton was not denied due process of law by irregularities in the proceedings before the Board and the panel; and (3) the appropriate judicial discipline is removal from office. View "Inquiry into the Conduct of Hon. Alan F. Pendleton" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Appellant Marlon Pratt was convicted of seventeen counts of theft by swindle and two counts of racketeering. On appeal, the court of appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing. This appeal followed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support Pratt's theft-by-swindle convictions; but (2) the judge who presided over Pratt's trial was disqualified from doing so under the Code of Judicial Conduct because the judge was retained by the county attorney's office to be an expert witness in an unrelated case, while at the same time presiding over Pratt's trial, which would cause a reasonable examiner to question the judge's impartiality. Remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Pratt" on Justia Law

The Minnesota Board on Judicial Standards filed a formal complaint against Judge Patricia Karasov, judge of a district court, alleging violations of the Rules of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Minnesota Constitution. A three-member panel appointed by the Supreme Court (1) found that Judge Karasov failed to reside within her judicial district during her continuance in office and failed to cooperate and be candid and honest with respect to the Board's investigation of her residency status, and (2) recommended that Judge Karasov be censured and suspended from judicial office for ninety days without pay. Both Judge Karasov and the Board appealed. The Supreme Court concluded (1) the Board proved by clear and convincing evidence that Judge Karasov committed judicial misconduct by clear and convincing evidence; (2) Judge Karasov's claim that she was denied due process of law by irregularities in the proceedings lacked merit; and (3) the appropriate judicial discipline was censure and suspension from judicial duties for six months without pay. View "In re Conduct of Judge Karasov" on Justia Law

The Board on Judicial Standards charged Judge Gregory Galler with creating an appearance of impropriety during an omnibus hearing in a DWI case, asserting, among other claims, that Judge Galler ordered a criminal defense attorney to write a letter of apology for allegedly impugning the integrity of a police officer during the attorney's oral argument at the omnibus hearing. A hearing panel appointed by the chief justice (1) dismissed the complaint against Judge Galler, finding that the Board failed to prove the allegations by clear and convincing evidence, and (2) denied Judge Galler's motion for attorney fees and costs under Minn. R. Civ. P. 11. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the panel had the authority to dismiss the case after the Board rested, and the panel did not err in dismissing the complaint; and (2) the panel did not err when it denied Judge Galler's motion for attorney fees and costs. View "In re Judge Galler" on Justia Law