Runge v. Disciplinary Board of the North Dakota Supreme Court
858 N.W.2d 901, 2015 N.D. LEXIS 29, 2015 ND 32 (2015)
Sections
Rule of Law:
An attorney does not violate professional conduct rules regarding clients with limited capacity by taking action at the client's direction without consulting the client's appointed representative, provided the attorney reasonably ascertains through direct interaction that the client possesses sufficient capacity to understand the decision and no court-appointed guardianship exists.
Facts:
- Norman Franz executed a power of attorney (POA) in 2009 appointing his daughter as his agent for financial matters but specifically excluding authority over medical or health care decisions.
- Franz suffered a heart attack and was admitted to a nursing home, where staff noted in an internal document signed by his daughter that he was 'incapable of making medical decisions.'
- Franz decided he wanted to leave the nursing home and had a friend contact Attorney Runge for legal assistance.
- Runge conducted a public records search and verified that although a POA existed, there was no court-appointed guardianship or conservatorship for Franz.
- Runge communicated with Franz by telephone and in person, during which Franz articulated a clear desire to leave the facility and an understanding of the consequences.
- Runge drafted a document revoking the power of attorney, which Franz signed after Runge explained its legal effect.
- Relying on the revocation, Runge informed the nursing home staff that Franz was free to leave, and Franz subsequently left the facility to live with a friend.
Procedural Posture:
- Franz's daughter filed a disciplinary complaint against Attorney Runge.
- The Inquiry Committee West investigated the complaint and issued an admonition against Runge for violating Rule 1.14.
- Runge appealed the admonition to the Disciplinary Board.
- The Disciplinary Board affirmed the Inquiry Committee's decision to admonish Runge.
- Runge petitioned the North Dakota Supreme Court for leave to appeal the Disciplinary Board’s decision.
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 violate ethical rules regarding representation of a client with limited capacity by assisting the client in revoking a power of attorney and leaving a care facility without consulting the client's agent, when the attorney reasonably determines the client has capacity and lacks a court-appointed guardian?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No, the Court held that Runge's assessment of his client's capacity was within the proper range of professional judgment and he was not required to consult the client's daughter. The Court reasoned that Rule 1.14 mandates maintaining a normal client-lawyer relationship as much as possible. A key distinction exists between a court-appointed guardianship, which removes a person's legal authority, and a power of attorney, which involves shared authority that the principal retains the right to revoke. The Court found that the internal 'emergency care statement' signed by the daughter did not grant her legal authority superior to Franz's own wishes. Because Runge verified the absence of a guardianship, personally assessed Franz's ability to understand his actions, and followed Franz's clear directives, there was no clear and convincing evidence of an ethical violation.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the autonomy of elderly clients and the discretion of attorneys to advocate for their liberty interests, even against the wishes of family members or care facilities. It clarifies the critical legal distinction between a power of attorney and a guardianship; specifically, that a POA does not strip a client of the right to make their own decisions or fire their agent. The ruling protects attorneys who conduct reasonable due diligence regarding a client's capacity from disciplinary action, emphasizing that capacity assessments are a matter of professional judgment rather than medical certainty.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Runge v. Disciplinary Board of the North Dakota Supreme Court (2015)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"