From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re McCormick

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT
Dec 17, 2020
951 N.W.2d 742 (Minn. 2020)

Summary

imposing public reprimand for failing to diligently pursue one client matter, failing to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter, failing to respond to the client's reasonable requests for information, failing to place a $500 advance flat fee into a trust account absent a written fee agreement signed by the client, and failing to appear for a pre-trial conference

Summary of this case from In re Bloomquist

Opinion

A20-0935

12-17-2020

IN RE Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST David Lawrence MCCORMICK, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0259500.


ORDER

The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility has filed a petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent David Lawrence McCormick has committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline—namely, failing to diligently pursue a client matter, failing to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter, failing to respond to the client for reasonable requests for information, failing to place a $500 advance flat fee into a trust account absent a written fee agreement signed by the client, and failing to appear for a pre-trial conference. See Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), 1.15(c)(5), and 8.4(d).

Respondent and the Director have entered into a stipulation for discipline. In it, respondent waives his procedural rights under Rule 14, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR), and unconditionally admits the allegations of the petition. The parties jointly recommend that the appropriate discipline is a public reprimand followed by 2 years of probation.

This court has independently reviewed the file and approves the jointly recommended disposition.

Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Respondent David Lawrence McCormick is publicly reprimanded.

2. Respondent shall pay $900 in costs pursuant to Rule 24, RLPR.

3. Respondent is placed on probation for 2 years, subject to the following terms and conditions:

a. Respondent shall cooperate fully with the Director's Office in its efforts to monitor compliance with this probation. Respondent shall promptly respond to the Director's correspondence by its due date. Respondent shall provide to the Director a current mailing address and shall immediately notify the Director of any change of address. Respondent shall cooperate with the Director's investigation of any allegations of unprofessional conduct that may come to the Director's attention. Upon the Director's request, respondent shall provide authorization for release of information and documentation to verify compliance with the terms of this probation.

b. Respondent shall abide by the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct.

4. If at any time during the period of probation, after giving respondent an opportunity to be heard by the Director, the Director concludes that respondent has violated the conditions of the probation or engaged in further misconduct, the Director may file a petition for disciplinary action against respondent in this court without the necessity of submitting the matter to a Panel or Panel Chair, respondent having waived that right.


Summaries of

In re McCormick

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT
Dec 17, 2020
951 N.W.2d 742 (Minn. 2020)

imposing public reprimand for failing to diligently pursue one client matter, failing to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter, failing to respond to the client's reasonable requests for information, failing to place a $500 advance flat fee into a trust account absent a written fee agreement signed by the client, and failing to appear for a pre-trial conference

Summary of this case from In re Bloomquist
Case details for

In re McCormick

Case Details

Full title:In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against David Lawrence McCormick, a…

Court:STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT

Date published: Dec 17, 2020

Citations

951 N.W.2d 742 (Minn. 2020)

Citing Cases

In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Usumanu

We have publicly reprimanded attorneys who had a similar or more substantial disciplinary history than…

In re Bloomquist

Typically, a public reprimand is appropriate for significant lack of diligence relating to a small number of…