Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

In Re Charges of Unprofessional Conduct in Panel Case No. 23236

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided March 8, 2007No. A06-1400PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

2Per curiam

This case presents the issue of whether a superasing lawyer has a duty to disclose to a client that another lawyer at the law firm, working on a matter for the client, had not been authorized to practice law for more than two years. This case also asks whether it is a violation of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct for a law firm to bill a client at a contractually agreed upon rate for lawyer services when the lawyer provided these services during a time when the lawyer was not authorized to practice law.

The following facts were found by a panel of the Lawyers Professional…

3Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Attorney Grievance Commission v. CassidyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2001
  2. In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against WestbySupreme Court of Minnesota · 2002
  3. In re X.Y.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1995
  4. In Re Disciplinary Action Against KeateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1992
  5. In Re Panel File Number 99-5Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2000

4Cited by4 opinions

  1. In re Disciplinary Action Against FettSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2010
  2. In Re CHARGES OF UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT IN PANEL FILE NO. 39302Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2016
  3. In Re CHARGES OF UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT IN PANEL FILE NO. 39302Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2016
  4. In Re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST A.B., a Minnesota Attorney, Panel Case No. 35121Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2014

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API