Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of North Dakota v. Wolff
North Dakota Supreme Court
1Concurrence
CROTHERS, Justice,
specially concurring.
[¶ 28] I concur in the disciplinary sanctions imposed by the Court and with much of what the Court has written in support of the sanctions. I write separately on two points of law arising, I believe, because disciplinary counsel is unnecessarily “stacking” allegations of rule violations and because the disciplinary board’s hearing panel has not sufficiently explained the rationale behind several of its findings of fact and conclusions of law on those issues. Doing so, I recognize Wolff did not object to the hearing panel’s findings of fact, conclusions…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Kamen v. Kemper Financial Services, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Watts v. PolaczykMichigan Court of Appeals · 2000
- Minn-Kota Ag Products, Inc. v. CarlsonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2004
- In Re KelloggSupreme Court of Kansas · 2002