2017 JUDGMENT INTEREST RATE
LAWYER DISCIPLINE
Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court , Petitioner , v . Julie L . Bruggeman , Respondent No . 20160337
The Supreme Court considered a stipulation , consent to discipline , and recommendations by a hearing panel of the Disciplinary Board , in which Bruggeman consented to a reprimand by the Supreme Court for violation of N . D . R . Prof . Conduct 1.3 , 1.4 , and 1.16 .
On Nov . 22 , 2013 , Bruggeman was retained to represent a client . From December 2014 to June 2015 , Bruggeman had minimal communication with the client , and she did not notify the client of a scheduling order setting trial for Sept . 29 , 2015 . In June 2015 , another attorney hired by the client contacted Bruggeman about her representation , and on July 7 , 2015 , Bruggeman provided her file to the other attorney . Bruggeman closed her file on July 7 , 2015 , without direction from the client . She had no further contact with the client , took no actions on the client ’ s behalf , did not prepare or forward a substitution of counsel for the other attorney , and did not notify the client to inform him of her termination of representation .
On Sept . 15 , 2015 , the court contacted Bruggeman to discuss the trial . The next day , Bruggeman moved to withdraw as counsel , but she did not serve the client with the motion . The court did not rule on the motion because there was no evidence it was served on the client . On Sept . 28 , 2015 , the court informed Bruggeman she was counsel of record , and she was to be present with the client at trial the next day .
Bruggeman did not attend the trial . On Sept . 29 , 2015 , the client was informed by a third party that his trial was occurring . The client had to hire emergency counsel for the trial . The client was unsuccessful and was ordered to pay the opposing party . The court found Bruggeman in contempt of court in November 2015 and ordered her to pay the client $ 3,419 to purge the contempt . She is making payments and is compliant with the order .
The Supreme Court reprimanded Bruggeman and ordered her to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding in the amount of $ 250 . Effective upon entry of the judgment , Bruggeman is on probation until her contempt of court in Burleigh County case 08-2014-CV- 00639 is purged , according to the terms in the contempt order . Bruggeman will submit an affidavit , with supporting documentation , to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel showing such terms have been met and purge has occurred .
N . D . R . Lawyer Disc Rule 6.2 . B .( 2 )
In accordance with N . D . R . Lawyer Disc Rule 6.2 . B .( 2 ), the disciplinary authority that issues an admonition or imposes probation which does not limit the lawyer ’ s license to practice law against a respondent who , where permissible , does not timely request a review of the discipline imposed under these rules , shall prepare a written summary of the misconduct that resulted in the discipline , including a reference to the disciplinary rule or statute violated and cause the summary to be published in the association publication .
• An attorney was admonished for a violation of Rule 4.4 of the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct . The attorney improperly used his status as an attorney to attempt to gain personal information from a third party , while representing clients .
• An attorney was admonished for a violation of Rules 5.5 , 7.1 , and 7.5 of the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct . The attorney issued a misleading solicitation letter to a potential client . The letter ’ s format failed to communicate the attorney ’ s limited ability to provide legal services in North Dakota at the time the letter was sent .
• An attorney was admonished for a violation of Rule 5.5 of the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct . The attorney held out , through firm letterhead and online publications , that the lawyer was licensed to provide legal services in North Dakota when the lawyer was not so licensed .
• An attorney was admonished for a violation of Rules 5.5 and 7.1 of the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct . The attorney maintained a website which was misleading with regard to the attorney ’ s North Dakota licensure status . Additionally , the attorney had a continuous presence in North Dakota by maintaining an office here , prior to attaining North Dakota licensure .
2017 JUDGMENT INTEREST RATE
The North Dakota State Court Administrator has set the judgment interest rate for 2017 at 6.50 percent . The administrator is required by law to annually determine the judgment interest rate prior to Dec . 20 .
The rate will be applied to all judgments entered in 2017 . The judgment interest rate is calculated by using the prime rate as reported on the first Monday in December , plus three percentage points . The result must be rounded up to the next one-half percentage point .
34 THE GAVEL