In the Matter of Application for Disciplinary Action Against Stensland
North Dakota Supreme Court
1Per curiam
[¶ 1] Monty Stensland objects to the Disciplinary Board hearing panel’s findings he violated N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.4, 3.3, 5.5(a) and N.D.R. Lawyer Discipl. 4.5 and 6.3. Stensland also objects to the hearing panel’s recommendations that he be suspended from the practice of law for sixty days and that he be ordered to pay $3,880.40 in costs for the disciplinary proceedings. We conclude clear and convincing evidence exists establishing Stensland violated N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.4, 3.3 and 5.5 and N.D.R. Lawyer Discipl. 4.5 and 6.3. We suspend Stensland from the practice of law for sixty days…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota v. BureshNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2007
- Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota v. JohnsonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2007
- Judicial Conduct Commission v. McGuireNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2004
- Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota v. GieseNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2006
- Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota v. McCrayNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2008
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Carlson v. Workforce Safety & InsuranceNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2009
- Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota v. StenslandNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2011
- State v. ZottnickNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2011
- Stensland v. Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of North DakotaNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2013