In Re Charges Of Unprofessional Conduct Contained In Panel Case No.

15976 653 N.W.2d 452 (2002)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D practices law in St. Paul, Minnesota. D's client sustained serious permanent physical injuries that disabled him when a school bus hit and ran over him with a rear tire while he was riding a bicycle. The accident crushed his pelvis and left him in a coma for approximately 1 month. The client was able to walk with the assistance of a cane. The client asserted that his permanent injuries prevented him from performing physical-labor-type jobs and that he did not qualify educationally or intellectually for other types of employment. The client sought damages for future loss of wages and future diminished earning capacity. P presided over the personal-injury action and a physically disabled law clerk to assist. The clerk is paralyzed from his mouth down and has difficulty breathing and speaking. The clerk works in a wheelchair, has a respirator and a full-time attendant. The clerk was present in the courtroom at the outset of the personal injury trial, assisted with jury selection, and remained in the courtroom throughout the trial. D's client expressed reservations about his ability to receive a fair trial grounded on the fact that if the disabled law clerk continued to work in the courtroom, the jury would compare the clerk who was more severely disabled yet able to work, to himself, who was less severely disabled and claiming an inability to work. D made an oral motion outside the presence of the jury, 'for a mistrial and another panel of jurors without your law clerk present or in the alternative that this case be assigned to another judge.' D did not support his motion with any legal authority. The jury found against the client. D brought a written motion for a new trial asserting the presence of the disabled clerk in the courtroom as one basis for the motion. D filed a complaint with the OLPR. It issued an admonition to D. P and D both appealed. The Panel concluded that D violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 3.1 and 8.4(d) when he brought the written motion for a new trial. It issued an amended admonition to respondent. Both P and D appealed.