LAWYER DISCIPLINE
Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota , Petitioner , v . Wade G . Enget , Respondent
No . 20160139
A hearing panel of the Disciplinary Board recommended Wade G . Enget be suspended from the practice of law in North Dakota for 30 days with a six-month probation following his suspension and recommended he pay costs of the disciplinary proceeding for violations .
Following a hearing , a hearing panel found Enget was hired by a client regarding the estate of her husband . She was appointed personal representative and formal probate was commenced in 2003 . The client received no communication from Enget in 2005 , 2006 , or 2008 . She received limited communication in 2007 . One of the husband ’ s three sons met with Enget in November 2009 , and an heirs agreement was created . The client refused the agreement when the son reviewed it with her . Enget testified he did not contact the client regarding the agreement . In February 2010 , Enget received a letter from the son ’ s attorney concerning failings in the husband ’ s probate . Enget forwarded the email to the client , who responded . The client then retained other counsel for her personal rights . The client resigned as personal representative , and Enget withdrew as counsel for the personal representative . By this point , the time to file an inventory and close the estate had expired .
The hearing panel concluded Enget violated N . D . R . Prof . Conduct 1.3 and N . D . R . Prof . Conduct 1.4 and recommended the sanction of suspension from the practice of law in North Dakota for 30 days with a six-month probation following his suspension . In recommending the sanction , the hearing panel concluded N . D . Stds . Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 4.42 and 7.2 applied . The Supreme Court disagreed that Sanction 7.2 applied . However , the Court agreed with the recommended sanction because a 30-day suspension is warranted under either provision . The Supreme Court suspended Enget from the practice of law in North Dakota for 30 days with a six-month probation following his suspension , effective July 1 , 2016 . The Supreme Court ordered him to pay $ 7,114.57 in costs and expenses for the disciplinary proceeding and ordered him to comply with N . D . R . Lawyer Discipl . 6.3 and 4.5 .
Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota , Petitioner , v . Michael Ward , Respondent
No . 20150337
The Disciplinary Board recommended that Michael Ward be suspended from the practice of law for two months and pay the costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceeding for violating N . D . R . Prof . Conduct 1.1 ( competence ), N . D . R . Prof . Conduct 1.3 ( diligence ), N . D . R . Prof . Conduct 1.4 ( communication ), and N . D . R . Prof . Conduct 1.16 ( e ) ( terminating representation ).
The Board found that Robert and Kelly Stigen paid Ward $ 1,500 to secure a Chapter 7 discharge in bankruptcy . After the meeting of creditors , the Stigens and Ward learned the bankruptcy trustee wanted an appraisal of a snowmobile and the Stigens to file their tax returns , which indicated they would receive a refund . During the next four months , the trustee sent eight letters to Ward and called him with questions about the unfiled tax returns and the snowmobile appraisal . Ward did not forward the letters to the Stigens and ceased contact with the trustee , even though the trustee threatened an adversary action against the Stigens . The trustee eventually filed an adversary complaint to deny the bankruptcy for failing to provide the trustee with the tax refunds and the snowmobile appraisal . Upon being served , the Stigens unsuccessfully attempted to contact Ward , so they hired a different attorney to answer the complaint . The new attorney asked Ward for the Stigens ’ file , but Ward did not provide a complete copy of the file . The new attorney negotiated a settlement agreement and the adversary proceeding was dismissed . After commencement of the disciplinary proceedings , seven months after Ward ’ s termination of representation , Ward returned the $ 1,500 flat fee to the Stigens .
For violation of these rules of professional conduct , the Board recommended Ward be suspended from the practice of law for two months and pay $ 8,284.78 for the costs and expenses of the proceeding . The Supreme Court found clear and convincing evidence Ward violated N . D . R . Prof . Conduct 1.3 , N . D . R . Prof . Conduct 1.4 , and N . D . R . Prof . Conduct 1.16 ( e ). The Court found there was not clear and convincing evidence Ward violated N . D . R . Prof . Conduct 1.1 . Ward was suspended from the practice of law for two months commencing July 1 , and ordered to pay $ 8,284.78 for the costs and expenses of the proceeding .
38 THE GAVEL