diligence and client communication, and she pay the costs of the
disciplinary proceeding for violations of the North Dakota Rules of
Professional Conduct
Bruhn maintained a law practice in Dickinson with John D. Bruhn.
The Bruhns would frequently appear on behalf of each other without
informing the client or obtaining the client’s consent. The Bruhns
were also often co-counsel representing clients. Related to these
disciplinary matters, Bruhn represented seven clients in criminal
matters and one client in a juvenile matter.
Bruhn failed to adequately communicate with her clients and
provided some with inaccurate information. She failed to notify
clients of hearings, failed to appear for hearings, and failed to
adequately prepare. She made false statements to the district court.
She or John Bruhn were late for hearings. The concluded Bruhn
violated N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, Competence; 1.2, Scope of
Representation and Allocation of Authority Between Client and
Lawyer; 1.3, Diligence; 1.4, Communication, and 3.3, Candor
Towards the Tribunal.
The Supreme Court suspended Bruhn from the practice of law for
60 days with one-year probation following her suspension, effective
Aug. 15. The Supreme Court also ordered that she work with
the Lawyer Assistance Program on law office management, she
complete six hours of continuing legal education classes focused on
the issues of diligence and client communication, and she pay the
costs and expenses of these disciplinary proceedings in the amount
of $250.
Disciplinary Board of the Supreme
Court of North Dakota, Petitioner
v. Cindy L. Turcotte, Respondent
No. 20180262
In findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations, and
after considering the aggravating factors under the N.D. Stds.
Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, a hearing panel of the Disciplinary
Board recommended Cindy L. Turcotte be suspended for six
months and one day and that she pay the costs and expense of the
disciplinary proceeding.
Turcotte maintained a law practice in Williston and practiced
criminal law. Turcotte was a contractor representing indigent
clients though the North Dakota Commission on Legal Counsel
for Indigents. Turcotte’s representation of five clients are the basis
of this disciplinary matter. Turcotte failed to file a written plea for
one client, which led to significant lengthening of his incarceration
before the matter was completed. She misinformed the district court
of the charges against a second client and the bond amount for
the third client. A fourth client faced revocation of probation and
Turcotte was unprepared for the evidentiary hearing, which had to
be continued. Despite receiving discovery to the contrary, Turcotte
misinformed the court that the fourth client had no criminal history.
She also informed the court a bed was available at a treatment
facility for that client. When asked for confirmation of the
bed availability, she produced as confirmation an email from
an individual not affiliated with the facility. Turcotte failed to
appear at a bail hearing for a fifth client and did not inform
the court she would not appear. The hearing panel concluded
Turcotte violated N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, Competence; 1.3,
Diligence; and 3.3, Candor Towards the Tribunal.
The Supreme Court suspended Turcotte from the practice of law
for six months and one day, effective Aug. 15, 2018, and ordered
her to pay the costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceeding
in the amount of $250.
Notice of Transfer to Active Status
In the Matter of the Application for
Transfer to Active Status of Lee Richard
Finstad, a Member of the Bar of the State
of North Dakota
No. 20130051
On Feb. 15, 2013, Lee Richard Finstad was transferred to
incapacity to practice law status at his request. On April 30,
2018, Finstad filed a petition to be returned to active status.
Finstad stated he complied with all the provisions of the
Supreme Court’s Feb. 15, 2013, order, and he had not practiced
law in any jurisdiction since the 2013 order. Finstad contended
he obtained treatment for his severe and chronic symptoms of
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, which was exacerbated in 2013.
It is his belief he is now able to practice law again at the level he
did before his 2013 PTSD exacerbation. Finstad provided letter
from the same psychiatrist who evaluated him in 2013, stating
Finstad is now fit to practice law from a medical standpoint.
On May 29, disciplinary counsel filed a response to the petition
indicating that with appropriate safeguards, there appears to
be clear and convincing evidence Finstad is no longer disabled
and is able to return to the practice of law. The Supreme
Court granted Finstad’s petition and he was returned to the
active practice of law, effective upon him providing proof of
completion of 45 hours of continuing legal education obtained
not more than 42 months preceding entry of judgment.
Discipline Summary for The Gavel
• A lawyer was admonished for a violation of Rule 5.5(d),
N.D.R. Prof. Conduct. The lawyer operated a website in order
to promote the provision of legal services to the public. The
lawyer indicated membership in the North Dakota Bar, when
not actually a member. Such assertion of membership when
not true was an improper holding out to the public as to the
lawyer’s ability to practice in North Dakota.
FALL 2018
37