Cited by

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

108 citing documents.

In Re Disciplinary Action Against Neill 486 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1992
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Walker 461 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 1990
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Walker 461 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 1990
(noncooperation alone justified 6-month suspension).
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Klemek 446 N.W.2d 391 Minn. 1989
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Klemek 446 N.W.2d 391 Minn. 1989
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Logan 442 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 1989
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Logan 442 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 1989
-552 (Minn.1979) (six month suspension for failure to cooperate in investigation).
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Levenstein 438 N.W.2d 665 Minn. 1989
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Levenstein 438 N.W.2d 665 Minn. 1989
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Flanery 431 N.W.2d 115 Minn. 1988
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Flanery 431 N.W.2d 115 Minn. 1988
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Truelson 427 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 1988
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Truelson 427 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 1988
Finally, it was alleged that respondent had failed to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation in violation of Rule 25, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility and
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Madsen 426 N.W.2d 434 Minn. 1988
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Madsen 426 N.W.2d 434 Minn. 1988
Respondent’s non-cooperation violated Rule 8.1(a)(3), Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC); Rule 25, RLPR; and this court’s holding in
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Weiss 421 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 1988
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Weiss 421 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 1988
The referee also found that initially the respondent had failed to cooperate with the Director’s investigation of this matter in violation of Rule 8.1(a)(3), MRPC, and
In Re the Disciplinary Action Against Jensen 418 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 1988
In Re the Disciplinary Action Against Jensen 418 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 1988
Lawyers Prof.Resp.; and this court’s holding in
Matter of Discipline of Wareham 413 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 1987
Matter of Discipline of Wareham 413 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 1987
Matter of Discipline of Henke 400 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 1987
Matter of Discipline of Henke 400 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 1987
His failure to cooperate in disciplinary proceedings violated Rule 8.1(a)(3), MRPC, Rule 25, RLPR, and the holding of this court in
Matter of Discipline of Helder 396 N.W.2d 559 Minn. 1986
Matter of Discipline of Helder 396 N.W.2d 559 Minn. 1986
It also charged that failure to cooperate violated Rule 25, RLPR, and this court’s holding in
Matter of Discipline of Moore 387 N.W.2d 435 Minn. 1986
Matter of Discipline of Moore 387 N.W.2d 435 Minn. 1986
Matter of Discipline of Gorgos 382 N.W.2d 857 Minn. 1986
Matter of Discipline of Jones 383 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 1986
Matter of Discipline of Jones 383 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 1986
Matter of Discipline of Gorgos 382 N.W.2d 857 Minn. 1986
Matter of Discipline of Smith 381 N.W.2d 431 Minn. 1986
Matter of Discipline of Smith 381 N.W.2d 431 Minn. 1986
The referee concluded that Smith’s failure to cooperate with the Director and the DEC violated DR 1-102(A)(5) and (6), Rule 25 of the Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility, and this court’s holding in
Matter of Discipline of Hoffman 379 N.W.2d 514 Minn. 1986
Matter of Discipline of Hoffman 379 N.W.2d 514 Minn. 1986
Matter of Discipline of Moore 376 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 1985
Matter of Discipline of Moore 376 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 1985
He failed to appear at a pre-hearing conference and failed to appear at the panel hearing scheduled by the Director, all in violation of Rule 25, Minn.R.Law.Prof.Resp., and this court’s holding in
In re the Discipline of McCoy 375 N.W.2d 471 Minn. 1985
In re the Discipline of Middleton 370 N.W.2d 421 Minn. 1985
In re the Discipline of Middleton 370 N.W.2d 421 Minn. 1985
e. Respondent’s conduct violated the disciplinary rules, including but not necessarily limited to DR 1-102(A)(4) and (5), DR 6-101(A)(2) and (3), DR 7-101(A)(l), and DR 7-106(A), MCPR, Rule 25, RLPR, and
In re Discipline of Watson 364 N.W.2d 407 Minn. 1985
In re Discipline of Watson 364 N.W.2d 407 Minn. 1985
(c) Respondent failed to cooperate with the Ninth District Ethics Committee’s and Director’s investigations of complaints of unethical conduct in violation of Dr l-102(a)(5) and (6), MCPR; Rule 25, RLPR; and the Minnesota Supreme Court’s holding in
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Pearson 352 N.W.2d 415 Minn. 1984
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Pearson 352 N.W.2d 415 Minn. 1984
In addition, we hold that Pearson’s failure to reply to Davenport constituted noncooperation with a disciplinary investigation in violation of DR l-102(A)(5)-(6), MCPR and our decision in
Matter of Discipline of Aronson 352 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 1984
Matter of Discipline of Aronson 352 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 1984
c. Respondent failed to cooperate with the district ethics committee investigation of the Jessee B. Miller ethics complaint in violation of DR 1-102(A)(5) and (6), MCPR, and
Matter of Disciplinary Act. Against Weyhrich 339 N.W.2d 274 Minn. 1983
Matter of Disciplinary Act. Against Weyhrich 339 N.W.2d 274 Minn. 1983
DR 1-102(A)(5), (6) and this court’s holding in
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Lee 334 N.W.2d 163 Minn. 1983
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Lee 334 N.W.2d 163 Minn. 1983
In this court ordered a 6-month suspension for refusal to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation.