From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Fitzpatrick

Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Feb 12, 2015
859 N.W.2d 526 (Minn. 2015)

Opinion

No. A14–2158.

02-12-2015

In re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Shannon M. FITZPATRICK, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 345349.


ORDER

The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed a petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent Shannon M. Fitzpatrick committed professional misconduct, namely, that while on disciplinary probation, respondent cut and pasted a client's signature from another document to a stipulation for an order, with that client's knowledge, notarized the signature, and filed the document with the district court, in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(c) and (d).

Respondent waived her procedural rights under Rule 14, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR), and unconditionally admitted the allegations of the petition. In a stipulation for discipline, the parties jointly recommended that the appropriate discipline is a 30–day suspension and 2 years of probation. After filing the stipulation for discipline, respondent asked the court to make her suspension retroactive to January 1, 2015, or in the alternative, to impose a 30–day stayed suspension.

The court has independently reviewed the file and will impose the disposition recommended in the stipulation for discipline.

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

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondent Shannon M. Fitzpatrick is suspended from the practice of law for a minimum of 30 days, effective the date of the filing of this order;

2. Respondent shall comply with Rule 26, RLPR (requiring notice of suspension to clients, opposing counsel, and tribunals);

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

4. Respondent shall be eligible for reinstatement to the practice of law following the expiration of the suspension period provided that, not less than 15 days before the end of the suspension period, respondent files with the Clerk of Appellate Courts and serves upon the Director an affidavit establishing that she is current in continuing legal education requirements, has complied with Rules 24 and 26, RLPR, and has complied with any other conditions for reinstatement imposed by the court;

5. Within 1 year of the date of the filing of this order, respondent shall file with the Clerk of Appellate Courts and serve upon the Director proof of successful completion of the professional responsibility portion of the state bar examination. Failure to timely file the required documentation shall result in automatic re-suspension, as provided in Rule 18(e)(3), RLPR ; and

6. Upon reinstatement to the practice of law, respondent shall be subject to probation for 2 years, subject to the following 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 the due date. Respondent shall provide the Director with 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 authorize the release of information and documentation to verify compliance with the terms of this probation; and

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

BY THE COURT:

/s/____________________

Alan C. Page

Associate Justice


Summaries of

In re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Fitzpatrick

Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Feb 12, 2015
859 N.W.2d 526 (Minn. 2015)
Case details for

In re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Fitzpatrick

Case Details

Full title:In re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Shannon M. FITZPATRICK, a…

Court:Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Date published: Feb 12, 2015

Citations

859 N.W.2d 526 (Minn. 2015)

Citing Cases

In re Hansen

To support his argument that a 30–day suspension is appropriate, Hansen cites In re Fitzpatrick, in which we…