Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota v. Buresh

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided January 16, 2007No. 20060230Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partVande Walle, Chief Justice

[¶ 18] I agree Buresh violated the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct and the North Dakota Rules of Lawyer Discipline noted in the majority opinion. However I would follow the Hearing Panel’s recommendation of an 18-month suspension.

[¶ 19] The term “disbarment” may carry a tone of finality. In reality, where disbarment is not permanent, and I do not understand the majority opinion to permanently disbar Buresh, the difference between disbarment and suspension is essentially a factor of time rather than one of finality. Thus, N.D. Stds. Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 2.1 provides:

Disbarment.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Grievance Commission v. ChristiansonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1977
  2. Disciplinary Action Against KaiserNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Ellis v. Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the StateNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2006
  4. Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court v. AllenNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1978

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

Powered by the Exa API