The State Bar Association of North Dakota Summer 2014 Gavel Magazine | Page 32

LAWYER DISCIPLINE
NOTICE OF DISCIPLINE OF
ATTORNEY

Disciplinary Board of the Supreme
Court of the State of North Dakota, v.
Camille O’Kara Hann
No. 20140171

Camille O’Kara Hann filed a Petition for
Reinstatement with the Disciplinary Board
of the Supreme Court. Hann had previously
been suspended from the practice of law for
a period of six months and one day starting
September 1, 2012, due to misconduct. The
matter was assigned to a hearing panel of
the Disciplinary Board, and it filed its report
with the Supreme Court. After evaluating
the factors for reinstatement under N.D.R.
Lawyer Discipl. 4.5, the hearing panel
recommended Hann be reinstated subject to
conditions. The report of the hearing
panel was submitted to the Supreme Court
and recommended Hann be allowed to
apply to the Disciplinary Board to lift the
conditions of reinstatement when evidence
demonstrates they are no longer needed. At
this time, Hann is unsure whether or not
she will return to the practice of
law.
The Supreme Court adopted the report of
the hearing panel and ordered Hann be
reinstated to the practice of law in the
State of North Dakota and she is eligible
to obtain a license, effective immediately. It
ordered the following conditions if Hann
returns to the practice of law in North
Dakota: (1) practice law in North Dakota
only if associated with an experienced
supervising lawyer; (2) work with the
Lawyer Assistance Program and set up an
individualized assistance plan to assist her
with law practice management; (3) provide
accountings, and if applicable, make refunds
for any unearned fees; and (4) file a report
with the Secretary of the Disciplinary Board
indicating compliance with all conditions
every six months with the first report being
due six months after being licensed. The
Supreme Court also ordered Hann to pay
the costs and expenses of the reinstatement
proceeding in the amount of $1,748.50.
32

THE GAVEL

NOTICE OF DISCIPLINE OF
ATTORNEY

In the Matter of the Reciprocal
Discipline of Mary T. Wynne, a Person
admitted to the Bar of the State of
North Dakota
No. 20140227

On August 2, 2013, the Disciplinary Board
of the Washington State Bar Association
filed two orders issuing formal reprimands
to Mary T. Wynne for engaging in
misconduct by mishandling client funds
in two cases. In one of those cases, Wynne
made confusing statements to a court
misleading it to believe her business account,
in which she deposited client funds, was
an Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Account
(IOLTA) account. Wynne was notified that
a certified copy of an order of discipline
entered by the Supreme Court of Minnesota
was received and that she 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 issued a reprimand
against Mary T. Wynne.

NOTICE OF ORDER DISBARRING
ATTORNEY
Disciplinary Board of the Supreme
Court of the State of North Dakota, v.
Rebecca Lee Lawler
No. 20140053-20140062

A hearing panel of the Disciplinary Board
recommended that Rebecca Lee
Lawler be disbarred from the practice of law
in North Dakota, that she pay
restitution to clients and the client
protection fund, and that she pay the costs
and expenses of the disciplinary proceedings.
Lawler was using methamphetamine and
crack cocaine from November
2010, to July 2012, and again from
November 8, 2012, to January 25, 2013.
During the first time period, Lawler
removed trust account funds paid in advance
by clients or received in trust for clients or
others before fees were earned or
expenses were incurred on behalf of clients.

On July 26, 2012, Lawler was interim
suspended, pending final disposition of the
disciplinary proceedings arising out of
the complaints filed against her. An
appointed professional trustee identified 22
clients for which there were no funds in
Lawler’s trust account to reimburse
clients. In addition, Lawler failed to
complete work for the clients, and in some
cases failed to diligently act on behalf of or
reasonably communicate with clients.
After considering the aggravating and
mitigating factors, the hearing panel
concluded disbarment was the appropriate
sanction. The Supreme Court adopted
the hearing panel’s conclusion that Lawler
violated N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.3, 1.4,
1.15(a), 1.15(c), 8.4(b) and N.D.R. Lawyer
Discipl. 1.2(A)(2) in 10 consolidated
matters. The Court ordered that Lawler be
disbarred from the practice of law, that
she pay $5,369.82 in costs of the disciplinary
proceedings, that she pay restitution
to clients and the client protection fund, and
that she pay the costs and expenses of
the disciplinary proceedings.