In re Disciplinary Action Against Stewart
Supreme Court of Minnesota
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
- In re Disciplinary Action Against LundeenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
- Application of SwansonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
- In re SmithSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1945
- In re Disciplinary Action Against GarciaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2010
- Matter of Reinstatement of WegnerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1987
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.