Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Disciplinary Board v. Kellington

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided August 28, 2014No. 20140080, 20140081Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCrothers, Justice

[¶ 36] This case is before the Court on a Petition to Revoke Probation and a Petition for Discipline. I agree disciplinary counsel met his burden of proving violations of Rules 1.5(a) and 5.3(a), but respectfully disagree with the sanction imposed as a result of the new violation. I agree Kellington’s stay of suspension should be revoked, but respectfully disagree on the length of suspension imposed.

[¶ 37] Disciplinary counsel alleged violation of Rule 1.5(a), N.D.R. Prof. Conduct, that Kellington charged excessive fees. Kellington admitted that time entries for transcription, faxing and…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Hilton v. North Dakota Education Ass'nNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Dieterle v. DieterleNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2013
  3. Dieterle v. DieterleNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2013
  4. In Re the Application for Disciplinary Action Against DvorakNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2000
  5. Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court v. HannNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2012

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

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

Powered by the Exa API