Legal Opinion
In Re Panel Case No. 17289
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided October 16, 2003No. A03-0141PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
2Per curiam
Appellant was issued an admonition by the Director of the Office of Professional Responsibility for submitting frivolous claims on his client’s behalf in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 3.1. An admonition is a private sanction for violations of lawyer ethical rules. A panel of the Lawyers Board on Professional Responsibility affirmed the admonition. Appellant appeals to this court to overturn that decision. We affirm the admonition.
Appellant was admitted to the practice of law in the State of Minnesota on October 17, 1969, and is currently engaged in the practice of law here.…
3Cases cited15 opinions
- Business Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Communications Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- In Re Pennie & Edmonds LLPCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2003
- Uselman v. UselmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
- In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against GrahamSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
- Aufderhar v. Data Dispatch, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by3 opinions
- In re Disciplinary Action Against UlanowskiSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2011
- In re Disciplinary Action Against MichaelSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2013
- Adoption of T.A.M. ex rel. J.M.J. v. L.A.M.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2010