Legal Opinion
Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court v. Hoffman
North Dakota Supreme Court
Decided July 23, 2013No. 20120290PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Per curiam
[¶ 1] Attorney Michael R. Hoffman objects to a report of a Hearing Panel of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court, recommending that he be reprimanded, that he refund $25,460 with interest to Bradford Wetmore, a former client, and that he pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding. We conclude Hoffman did not violate N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.5(a) or 1.15(a) and (c) in his “minimum fee” agreement with Wetmore to provide legal services. However, we conclude a “minimum fee,” even designated as nonrefundable, may still be subject to refund under N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(e) upon termination…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Matter of CoopermanNew York Court of Appeals · 1994
- Dowling v. Chicago Options Associates, Inc.Illinois Supreme Court · 2007
- McKenzie Construction, Inc. v. Desmond L. MaynardCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1985
- In re SatherSupreme Court of Colorado · 2000
- In Re SmithIllinois Supreme Court · 1995
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Disciplinary Board v. HoffmanNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2013
- Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State v. HardwickNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2013
- Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State v. HoweNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2014
- Gerber v. Disciplinary Board of the North Dakota Supreme CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2015
- Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court v. JohnstonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2015
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.