Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

In Re Disciplinary Action Against Stanbury

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided July 20, 2000No. CX-96-859PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

2Per curiam

We consider the appropriate discipline for respondent Alfred Milton Stanbury due to his failure to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation. The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility petitioned this court to discipline Stanbury because he failed to cooperate with the Director or the District Ethics Committee (DEC) investigator for a period of ten months. Subsequent to the disciplinary hearing, the referee concluded that Stan-bury’s noncooperation violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.1(a)(3), 8.4(a), (d), and Rule 25, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility…

3Cases cited16 opinions

  1. In Re the Discipline of CartwrightSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
  2. In Re Disciplinary Action Against MadsenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
  3. In Re Disciplinary Action Against EngelSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1995
  4. In Re Disciplinary Action Against JensenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1996
  5. Borchert v. MaloneySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1998

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

4Cited by9 opinions

  1. In Re Disciplinary Action Against NelsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2007
  2. In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against RooneySupreme Court of Minnesota · 2006
  3. In re Disciplinary Action Against LetourneauSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2011
  4. In Re Disciplinary Action Against EricksonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2002
  5. In Re Disciplinary Action Against HolkerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2007

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API