Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re the Discipline of Cartwright, 282 N.W.2d 548.

108 citing documents.

In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Ana L. Pena, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0386459 Minn. 2025
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Ana L. Pena, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0386459 Minn. 2025
“We have long recognized that it is incumbent upon an attorney to cooperate with disciplinary authorities in their investigation and resolution of complaints against [them].” (alteration added) () (internal quotation marks omitted).
In re Disciplinary Action Against Pearson 888 N.W.2d 319 Minn. 2016
In re Disciplinary Action Against Pearson 888 N.W.2d 319 Minn. 2016
We have also “long recognized that it is incumbent upon an attorney to cooperate with disciplinary authorities in their investigation and resolution of complaints,” and that failure to do so is “serious misconduct.” Schulte, d at 678 () (internal quotation marks omitted).
In Re PETITION FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Frank Arend SCHULTE, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 244934 869 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2015
In Re PETITION FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Frank Arend SCHULTE, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 244934 869 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2015
We have “long recognized that it is incumbent upon an attorney to cooperate with disciplinary authorities in their investigation and resolution of complaints against him.”
In re Disciplinary Action Against Letourneau 792 N.W.2d 444 Minn. 2011
In re Disciplinary Action Against Letourneau 792 N.W.2d 444 Minn. 2011
Compare (suspending for six months an attorney who completely failed to respond to the Director’s investigation, even though the matter under investigation had been closed without charges), with (ordering a 30-day stayed suspension and four years of probation fo
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Karlsen 778 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 2010
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Karlsen 778 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 2010
(holding that failure to cooperate, without more, warrants suspension); (suspending attorney for six months due to noncooperation).
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Selmer 749 N.W.2d 30 Minn. 2008
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Selmer 749 N.W.2d 30 Minn. 2008
or’s requests); -92 (Minn.1989) (suspending an attorney indefinitely for at least 6 months for failing to initiate timely contact with her probation supervisor, failing to provide information on her client files, failing to reply to the Director’s letters, failing to attend two scheduled meetings with the Director, and neglecting client matters); 552 (Minn.1979) (suspending an attorney for 6 months based in part on his noncompliance, which included repeatedly failing to respond to the Director’s
In Re Fagre-Stroetz 710 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 2006
In re Disciplinary Action Against Fagrestroetz 710 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 2006
In re Disciplinary Action Against Fagrestroetz 710 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 2006
Fagre-Stroetz’s failure to appropriately respond at any stage of the disciplinary proceedings constitutes a violation of the professional responsibility rules requiring participation and our holding in
In Re Fagre-Stroetz 710 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 2006
Fagre-Stroetz's failure to appropriately respond at any stage of the disciplinary proceedings constitutes a violation of the professional responsibility rules requiring participation and our holding in
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Pierce 706 N.W.2d 749 Minn. 2005
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Pierce 706 N.W.2d 749 Minn. 2005
Conduct 8.1; Rule 25, RLPR; -52 (Minn.1979).
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Hoover 645 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 2002
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Hoover 645 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 2002
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Ek 643 N.W.2d 611 Minn. 2002
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Ek 643 N.W.2d 611 Minn. 2002
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Jellinger 625 N.W.2d 143 Minn. 2001
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Bianco 623 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 2001
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Bianco 623 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 2001
Conduct 3.4(c), 5.5(a) and 8.1(a)(3), Rule 25, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR), and the Court’s holding in
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Stanbury 614 N.W.2d 209 Minn. 2000
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Stanbury 614 N.W.2d 209 Minn. 2000
(holding failure to cooperate warrants indefinite suspension); (holding failure to cooperate, without more, warrants suspension); (suspending attorney for six months due to noncooperation).
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Flatten 611 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2000
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Flatten 611 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2000
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Campbell 603 N.W.2d 128 Minn. 1999
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Campbell 603 N.W.2d 128 Minn. 1999
ncooperation violated Rule 8.1(a)(3), MRPC (forbidding an attorney from know *132 ingly failing to respond to a disciplinary authority’s demand for information), Rule 25, RLPR (requiring an attorney subject to investigation under the Rules to cooperate with the Director’s Office by complying with reasonable requests for information and appearances), and this court’s directive in (“We have long recognized that it is incumbent upon an attorney to cooperate with disciplinary authorities in their in
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Thedens 602 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 1999
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Thedens 602 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 1999
“We have long recognized that it is imperative that an attorney cooperate with disciplinary authorities in their investigation and resolution of complaints against the lawyer.” (citations omitted); In re Larson, 210 Minn. 414 , 298 N.W.
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Orren 590 N.W.2d 127 Minn. 1999
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Orren 590 N.W.2d 127 Minn. 1999
We have also emphasized the need for the attorney’s cooperation with the investigation of a complaint: “We have long recognized that it is imperative that an attorney cooperate with disciplinary authorities in their investigation and resolution of complaints against the lawyer.” ( In re Larson, 210 Minn. 414 , 298 N.W.
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Pucel 588 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 1999
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Pucel 588 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 1999
( In re Larson, 210 Minn. 414 , 298 N.W.
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Szymialis 557 N.W.2d 554 Minn. 1997
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Szymialis 557 N.W.2d 554 Minn. 1997
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Lallier 555 N.W.2d 903 Minn. 1996
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Lallier 555 N.W.2d 903 Minn. 1996
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Engel 538 N.W.2d 906 Minn. 1995
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Engel 538 N.W.2d 906 Minn. 1995
In re Larson, 210 Minn. 414 , 298 N.W.
Appeal of Admonition Regarding A.M.E. 533 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 1995
Appeal of Admonition Regarding A.M.E. 533 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 1995
-52 (Minn.1979); Rule 25(b), RLPR.
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Kinnunen 502 N.W.2d 773 Minn. 1993
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Kinnunen 502 N.W.2d 773 Minn. 1993
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Stockman 502 N.W.2d 209 Minn. 1993
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Stockman 502 N.W.2d 209 Minn. 1993
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Neill 486 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1992