Fall 2018 Gavel Gavel Fall 2018 | Page 37

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