LAWYER DISCIPLINE
Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota , Petitioner v . Allan R . Popper , Respondent No . 20180113
The Supreme Court considered the stipulated findings , conclusions , consent to discipline , and recommendations of the hearing panel of the Disciplinary Board recommending that Allan R . Popper be disciplined for violation of N . D . R . Prof . Conduct 5.5 ( a ) and 7.1 ( a ).
Popper is an employee of Lienguard , Inc . Lienguard , Inc ., was hired by L S Drywall , Inc ., to place a construction lien on property located in North Dakota . Popper researched the property recordings and researched North Dakota statutes . He mailed a Preliminary Notice of Furnishing for Private Work and a Notice of Intent to Claim a Construction Lien to the current owners of the property , and he demanded payment of $ 3,515 . He drafted and signed a verification acknowledging the information contained within the notice was true to the best of his knowledge and belief . Popper did not associate with an attorney licensed to practice law in North Dakota . He did not indicate in the drafted legal documents that he was not licensed in North Dakota or that he was an attorney .
Popper admitted he violated N . D . R . Prof . Conduct 5.5 ( a ) regarding the unauthorized practice of law and 7.1 ( a ) regarding communications concerning the services of a lawyer . He agreed a reprimand was the appropriate sanction .
The Supreme Court reprimanded Popper , ordered he cease and desist engaging in any further unauthorized practice of law or submissions of misleading communications in North Dakota , ordered he is prohibited from seeking licensure or pro hac vice admission for two years , and ordered he pay the costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceedings in the amount of $ 380 .
Discipline Summaries
• A lawyer was admonished for a violation of Rule 4.2 , N . D . R . Prof . Conduct . During the course of representing a client , the lawyer sent a letter directly to the opposing party when the opposing party was represented by counsel and the lawyer had reason to know about that representation . The letter was not sent to opposing counsel , but communicated about the subject matter of the representation . The lawyer did not have permission to speak directly to the party .
• A lawyer was admonished for a violation of Rule 1.3 , N . D . R . Prof . Conduct . The lawyer represented an individual in a child custody matter and had the individual do a substantial amount of work in her own case that should have been done by the lawyer . Additionally , the lawyer drew the matter out for a longer period of time than was necessary .
42 THE GAVEL