Legal Opinion
In Re Disciplinary Action Against De Rycke
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided May 23, 2002No. C1-98-589PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
2Per curiam
We consider the appropriate discipline for an attorney who has failed to cooperate with the terms of his court ordered disciplinary probation despite having been publicly reprimanded in the past for failing to comply with the terms of his probation and having had his probation extended as a result of his noncompliance. We conclude that indefinite suspension from the practice of law without the eligibility to apply for reinstatement for a minimum of 6 months is the appropriate discipline to be imposed.
Respondent Eric A.L. De Rycke was admitted to practice law in Minnesota in 1974. On…
3Cases cited6 opinions
- In Re Disciplinary Action Against MadsenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against BishopSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1998
- In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against HoedemanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2001
- In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against DanielsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2001
- In Re Disciplinary Action Against De RyckeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1998
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by2 opinions
- In Re Disciplinary Action Against De RyckeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2006
- In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against AndersonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2009