funds, failure to safe keep property, improper fee agreements,
dishonesty, neglectful communication, communication failure, and
noncooperation with a disciplinary proceeding. The Supreme Court
previously disbarred Matson in Disciplinary Board v. Matson, 2017
ND 149, 897 N.W.2d 11.
Matson was notified a certified copy of an order of discipline entered
by the Supreme Court of Minnesota was received and he had 30 days
to file any claim that imposition of the identical discipline in North
Dakota would be unwarranted and the reasons for the claim. No
response was received. The North Dakota Supreme Court disbarred
Matson.
Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of
North Dakota Petitioner v. John E. Widdel,
Respondent No. 20170204
In a stipulation, consent to discipline, and recommendations, and
after considering the aggravating and mitigating factors under the
N.D. Stds. Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, a hearing panel of the
Disciplinary Board recommended John E. Widdel be suspended
for six months and one day, that he abide by and make payments
as required by the judgment in Grand Forks County Case No.
18-2011-PR-00144, and that he pay the costs and expenses of the
disciplinary proceeding.
Widdel was hired to represent a trust and estate, and he provided
legal services to both simultaneously. Widdel was paid $103,000
during the course of his representation. After the beneficiaries moved
the district court to determine the reasonableness of the fees, the
court ordered Widdel to refund $95,000 to the trust and estate.
Widdel knowingly failed to file a tax return for 2013 as directed
by the personal representative of the estate. The failure to do so
reduced the assets of the trust and estate by approximately $13,000.
Widdel failed to timely file an inventory for the estate as required by
N.D.C.C. § 30.1-18-06. Widdel also failed to adequately represent
and supervise the personal representative of the estate, which resulted
in extensive and costly litigation.
The hearing panel and Widdel agreed he violated N.D.R. Prof.
Conduct 1.1, Competence, by failing to properly conduct and
manage the representation of the estate and trust with the requisite
skill, including failures in supervising the activities of the personal
representative to ensure the fiduciary duties of the personal
representative to the beneficiaries were fulfilled; N.D.R. Prof.
Conduct Rule 1.3, Diligence, by failing to timely file a tax return for
2013, which resulted in injury to his client and by failing to timely
file an inventory in the estate; and N.D.R. Prof. Conduct Rule l.5,
Fees, by charging unreasonable fees when he billed $103,000 for
services rendered during his representation.
The Supreme Court suspended Widdel from the practice of law in
North Dakota for six months and one day effective immediately,
ordered he abide by and make payments as required by the judgment
in Grand Forks County Case No. 18-2011-PR-00144, ordered he
pay the costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceeding in the
amount of $250, and ordered he make restitution for any amounts
paid by the North Dakota Client Protection Fund.
Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court
of North Dakota Petitioner v. T L Secrest,
Respondent No. 6051-W-1608
A hearing panel of the Disciplinary Board reprimanded T L Secrest
for violation of N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.9 and 3.1. Secrest stipulated
to the facts and conclusions, and he consented to the discipline.
Secrest represented a client and his business entities. During that
representation, the client disclosed detailed plans for the entities.
After that representation, Secrest represented a third-party who filed
construction liens and lis pendens against his former client’s entities’
property. Secrest also commenced litigation against the former client
personally related to repayment of the lie ns. The litigation against the
former client was dismissed as frivolous because it was against the
former client personally. Secrest did not obtain waiver of the conflict
of interest with the former client or the entities.
The hearing panel concluded Secrest failed to identify the conflicts
of interest and brought a frivolous claim in violation of the Rules
of Professional Conduct. Secrest consented to a reprimand by
the hearing panel. He was ordered to pay $250 in costs of the
disciplinary proceedings within 30 days, and he agreed to remain
retired and not seek relicensure in the future.
Additional Disciplinary Notes
An attorney was admonished for a violation of Rule 8.4(f ) of the
North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct. The attorney’s conduct
was found to be prejudicial to the administration of justice. The
attorney, after appearing at a hearing, was reported to court staff as
smelling of alcohol and being potentially intoxicated. Before the
attorney’s next hearing, the attorney submitted to a breathalyzer,
which was requested by the judge assigned to the pending matter.
The test detected alcohol within the attorney’s system. Although
the judge did not observe outward signs of intoxication or irrational
conduct, the attorney’s remaining hearings for the day were
continued until later dates.
An attorney was admonished for a violation of Rule 1.7 of the North
Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct. The attorney had a conflict of
interest when an open records request was submitted by the city by
the attorney’s spouse. The attorney had oversight authority over what
would be included within the response to the request and failed to
ask someone else to oversee the matter.
An attorney was admonished for violations of Rule 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and
1.4 of the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct. The attorney
failed to provide discovery to a client and failed to adequately discuss
a change of plea and the waiver of a jury trial before informing the
district court that the trial was no longer necessary.
FALL 2017
37