In Re Charges of Unprofessional Conduct Contained in Panel Case No. 15976
2002 WL 31668874, 653 N.W.2d 452, 2002 Minn. LEXIS 852 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney's motion to exclude a disabled court employee from a proceeding based on the employee's disability constitutes professional misconduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. However, the seriousness of such conduct for disciplinary purposes depends on the specific context, such as a perceived conflict between the rights of two disabled persons.
Facts:
- Respondent, an attorney, represented a plaintiff with a serious permanent physical disability in a personal injury trial.
- The plaintiff sought damages for future diminished earning capacity, arguing his injuries prevented him from performing physical labor jobs.
- The presiding judge's law clerk was severely disabled, paralyzed from the mouth down, and performed his duties in a large wheelchair with a respirator and an attendant.
- The plaintiff expressed concern to Respondent that the jury would compare his less severe disability to the clerk's more severe disability and deny his claim for lost wages because the clerk was gainfully employed.
- During the trial, Respondent made an oral motion for a mistrial, arguing the clerk's presence was prejudicial to his client.
- After the jury found for the defendant on liability, Respondent filed a written motion for a new trial, again citing the clerk's presence as a basis for the motion and providing no supporting legal authority.
Procedural Posture:
- Judge Franklin J. Knoll filed a complaint against Respondent with the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility (OLPR).
- The OLPR Director issued an admonition to Respondent.
- Respondent requested a review of the admonition by a Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board Panel.
- The Panel held a hearing and concluded Respondent violated Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct 3.1 and 8.4(d), affirming and amending the admonition.
- Judge Knoll, as complainant, petitioned the Minnesota Supreme Court for discretionary review of the Panel's decision.
- Respondent also appealed the Panel's decision to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
- The Minnesota Supreme Court granted the petition and consolidated the two appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an attorney engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of Minnesota Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(d), by moving to exclude a judge's severely disabled law clerk from the courtroom because the clerk's presence might negatively influence the jury's perception of the attorney's disabled client's damages claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, the attorney's conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice. The court holds that attempting to limit a court employee's participation in a proceeding based on disability is professional misconduct under Rule 8.4(d). The court extends its prior holding in In re Panel File 98-26, which found race-based motions to exclude an attorney to be inherently serious misconduct, to also encompass disability. It reasoned that since the Minnesota Human Rights Act treats race and disability discrimination equally, the professional conduct rules should as well. However, the court distinguished this case when determining the severity of the sanction. It found the misconduct to be 'non-serious' in this specific context because the motion was an 'inappropriate attempt to address the respective rights of two disabled persons,' rather than an act of pure prejudice. The court also noted that the attorney did not misuse state power to interfere with the clerk's rights, unlike the prosecutor in the precedent case.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that discrimination against court personnel based on disability is a professional conduct violation analogous to race-based discrimination. However, it creates a nuanced distinction by allowing the specific context—such as a perceived conflict of rights between two disabled individuals—to mitigate the seriousness of the offense for disciplinary purposes. This suggests that while the act itself is a violation, the court will look closely at the surrounding circumstances and motives to determine the appropriate sanction, potentially creating a less rigid standard than for other forms of discrimination. The ruling highlights the tension between a lawyer's duty of zealous advocacy and the professional obligation to uphold the integrity and fairness of the justice system.
