Legal Opinion

In re Disciplinary Action Against Stewart

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided July 26, 2017No. A16-1309Published

1Dissent 1

DISSENT

2Dissent · GildeaGildea, Chief Justice

I respectfully dissent. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) excluded respondent Alan R; Stewart from practice for misappropriating $8,000 in client funds, neglecting a client matter, failing to communicate with a client, engaging in, the unauthorized practice of law, and failing to cooperate with the disciplinary proceedings. I agree with the majority that the discipline in Minnesota identical to exclusion before the USPTO is an indefinite suspension with no right to petition for reinstatement for 5 years (“6-year suspension”). I also agree with the majority that the…

3Cases cited18 opinions

  1. In re Disciplinary Action Against LundeenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
  2. Application of SwansonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
  3. In re SmithSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1945
  4. In re Disciplinary Action Against GarciaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2010
  5. Matter of Reinstatement of WegnerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1987

13 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