In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Hoedeman
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
2Per curiam
This disciplinary proceeding follows the failure of respondent Alfred L. Hoedeman to comply with the terms of his private probation and to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation by the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board (LPRB). In the absence of any factors justifying mitigation, we conclude that indefinite suspension from the practice of law is the appropriate sanction.
Since Hoedeman was admitted to the practice of law in Minnesota in 1959 he has been admonished twice for professional misconduct unrelated to the present proceedings-once in 1984 for failure to return all…
3Cases cited12 opinions
- In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against RuffenachSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1992
- In Re Disciplinary Action Against LochowSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1991
- Matter of Discipline of SimonsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- In Re Disciplinary Action Against ThedensSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1997
- In Re Disciplinary Action Against SwerineSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1994
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by9 opinions
- In re Disciplinary Action Against MontezSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
- In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against VarrianoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2008
- In re Disciplinary Action Against TigueSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2014
- In Re PETITION FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Frank Arend SCHULTE, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 244934Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2015
- In re Disciplinary Action Against PearsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2016
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.