By Jenelle Lundgren


Link for Opinion: http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?rs=WLW10.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&tr=4B910850-BF6A-4A15-B3A7-CE0D7C2EE497&sr=PT&cite=783++N.W.2d+170&utid=1&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&mt=Minnesota


Minnesota: A Lawyer’s Indefinite Suspension

In the case of In re Disciplinary Action against Juan Jesus Rodriguez, 783 N.W. 2d 170, the Supreme Court of Minnesota disbarred Attorney Juan Jesus Rodriguez for professional misconduct warranting public discipline, namely, misappropriating funds from a legal services organization by intercepting payment intended to pay the organization, which is in violation of Minn R. Prof. Conduct 1.15(a) and 8.4(c), and misrepresenting the terms of agreements signed by clients with the legal services organization for the purpose of collecting additional funds for his own use, which is a violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 4.1, 8.4(c), and 8.4(d). Attorney Rodriguez stole approximately $650 from his low-income clients for his own personal use; namely, illegal drugs.

Attorney Juan Jesus Rodriguez, a Minnesota attorney, could not be found in the state or served personally with the disciplinary action. Because of this, in November of 2008, the Supreme Court suspended Rodriguez from practicing law, but with the stipulation that Rodriguez had one year that he could move for a vacation of the order of suspension. Attorney Rodriguez did not seek to vacate the order or otherwise appear to take action against the order.

In January 2010, the Supreme Court admitted the allegations of disciplinary action and invited briefs from the parties on what they thought would be the appropriate action in this matter. The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed a brief recommending disbarment, which Attorney Rodriguez does not and will not oppose.

Justice Paul Anderson filed a dissenting opinion recommending suspension for five years so that Rodriguez could recover from his drug habit and possibly get his life back on track.

The Supreme Court decided on disbarment and it was so ordered.


Labels for post: disbarment, Rule 1.15(a), Rule 8.4(c) and (d), Rule 4.1, public discipline