Statistics, Statistics
By Kenneth L. Jorgensen
Continuing a trend
that started several years ago, the number of complaints received
against lawyers fell from 1,168 in 2003 to 1,147 in calendar year
2004. At the same time, the
number of advisory opinions requested continued to increase from 1,889
in 2003 to 1,974 in 2004. The
statistical correlation over the past several years between complaints
filed and advisory opinions issued continues to support the conclusion
that advisory opinions reduce or prevent complaints against lawyers.
The statistical correlation between complaints and advisory
opinions is reflected below:
Advisory
Opinions Complaints
YEAR
Issued Filed
1991........................
1292...................... 1380
1992........................
1398...................... 1399
1993........................
1627...................... 1405
1994........................
1765...................... 1456
1995........................
1795...................... 1290
1996........................
1783...................... 1438
1997........................
1757...................... 1314
1998........................
1632...................... 1275
1999........................
1635...................... 1278
2000........................
1770...................... 1362
2001........................
1824...................... 1246
2002........................
1825...................... 1165
2003........................
1889...................... 1168
2004........................
1974...................... 1147
Beyond advisory opinions, the office has continued its
mission to educate the bar by speaking at numerous cle
presentations. Both of these
efforts are aimed at increasing awareness of professional standards
and improving the delivery of legal services.
The areas of law practice generating the most complaints
were:
Family Law.......................................243
Criminal Law.....................................242
Litigation ...........................................222
Probate...............................................82
Real Estate.........................................
74
Collection...........................................
60
A sampling of the identity of persons who filed
complaints against lawyers in 2004 broke down as follows:
Clients..............................................
554
Adverse Parties.................................
283
Other Lay Persons..............................
99
Opposing Counsel...............................
46
Other Lawyers....................................
32
Creditors.............................................
29
Complaint allegations
clustered in several key areas as follows:
Communication, Diligence & Competence............................401
Dishonesty & Criminal Conduct...........................................
209
Allegations Not Constituting an Offense................................109
Contact with Parties, Frivolous Litigation................................94
Fees......................................................................................84
Candor to the Tribunal, Ex Parte Contacts..............................75
Conflicts of Interest................................................................62
During
2004 there were 1,109 complaints resolved as follows:
Dismissal Without Investigation.......537
Dismissal After Investigation...........395
Admonition.................................. ...94
Panel Admonition............................
..4
Private Probation.............................
17
Public Reprimand & Probation..........
9
Suspension.......................................19
Disbarment...................................... 11
Disability Inactive Status....................
4
Resignation...................................... 10
Reinstatement Cases...........................8
Trusteeship Proceeding......................
1
PUBLIC
DISCIPLINE CASES
The Supreme Court in calendar year 2004 entered disciplinary
orders involving 39 different lawyers.
Among the Supreme Court lawyer discipline cases decided in
the last half of 2004 and during the first six months of 2005 were:
James J. Boyd of St. Paul
was disbarred for commingling personal funds in his client trust account
and a client estate account in order to shelter the funds from creditors,
including tax authorities. Boyd
had a significant discipline history that included three private admonitions,
a 1988 suspension for preparing and filing a false deed, and a 2003
suspension for failing to timely file income tax returns.
Samuel M. Vaught of St. Paul
was disbarred for misappropriating client funds, making false statements,
and failing to cooperate in the disciplinary investigation. At the time of his disbarment, Vaught had been
suspended since 2002 for misappropriation of client funds. Vaught had also been reprimanded in 1998 for
failing to timely file income tax returns.
Alfred Perez Jr. of California
was disbarred after it was discovered he had been convicted in California
Federal District Court in 1993 of mail
fraud and money laundering in his California
law practice. Perez did not
report his conviction to the Minnesota
bar and after his conviction the California
lawyer discipline authorities allowed Perez to resign rather than
be disbarred. Perez had been
using his Minnesota
license between 1995 and 2004 to practice law before federal immigration
tribunals in California
and Arizona.
Winston W. Borden of St. Paul
was indefinitely suspended after he was criminally convicted of willful
failure to file federal income tax returns for the tax years 1997
through 2002.
Harvey C. Ginsburg of St. Louis Park
was suspended for one year as a lawyer and ordered to be placed on
disability inactive status after the one-year suspension
period. Ginsburg’s discipline
resulted from a judicial misconduct proceeding in which he was removed
from office and retired based on disability. Ginsburg’s misconduct included criminal convictions
for fifth-degree assault and criminal damage to property and five
instances of improper conduct occurring during legal proceedings over
which he presided as a judge.
Steven F. Soronow of Minnetonka
was suspended for an additional period of 30 months. Soronow had been indefinitely
suspended from practice in 2002 for neglect, failure to return files
and unearned fees, failure to cooperate, and committing a misdemeanor
involving dishonesty. The additional
30-month suspension resulted from Soronow’s
attempt to coerce a former client who had filed an ethics complaint
against him to cease cooperating with the disciplinary investigation. Soronow’s misconduct
also included posting misleading statements on the law firm Web site
used by Soronow prior to his suspension,
and by his wife who is also a lawyer, after Soronow’s
suspension.
James M. Burseth of Minneapolis
was indefinitely suspended with no right to apply for reinstatement
until he has provided one year of negative nondilute
random urinalysis test results for alcohol and drugs.
Burseth’s suspension occurred when
he violated a previous disciplinary order requiring him to remain
abstinent and to submit to random urinalysis.
Burseth’s misconduct included appearing in court with alcohol
on his breath, testing positive for alcohol in a random urinalysis,
having to be replaced as trial counsel in a murder trial because he
failed to appear for jury selection, and making misrepresentations
to his employer and the Director’s Office about his sobriety.
Jane E. Brooks of Roseville was indefinitely suspended
for a minimum of two years for neglecting client matters, misusing
her trust account, and failing to cooperate with the discipline process. Brooks had previously been publicly reprimanded
in 1993 for trust account violations.
Chester D. Swenson of Albert Lea
was suspended for 60 days with reinstatement limited to permanent
retired status for making misleading statements to his client and
child support authorities. Swenson
had previously been suspended for 30 days in 1995.
Jeff D. Bagniefski of Rochester
was suspended for 90 days with the requirement that he petition for
reinstatement to the practice of law after the expiration of the suspension.
Bagniefski failed to file a brief,
filed a frivolous motion resulting in a $1,500 sanction, had his client
sign a blank signature page that was later improperly notarized and
attached to an inaccurate affidavit that was filed with the court
without consulting the client, and entering into a contingent fee
agreement in a marriage dissolution case.
ANNUAL REPORT
Each year the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board
and Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility issues an annual
report covering statistics and other developments in the lawyer discipline
system. Statistics like those found in this article
and many more are available in the annual report that can be accessed
on the Lawyers Board Web site www.courts.state.mn.us/lprb.
c
KENNETH L. JORGENSEN is director of the Office
of Lawyers Professional Responsibility.
He has served the cause of lawyers' self-regulation in Minnesota
for over 20 years.
