TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Disciplinary Board v. Robb

DISCIPLINARY BOARD, Petitioner, v. Thomas W. ROBB, Respondent

Disciplinary Bd. v. Robb, 506 N.W.2d 714 (N.D. 1993)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
North Dakota Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
September 27, 1993
Docket
No. 930218
Judges
Vande Walle, Meschke, Levine, Neumann, Sandstrom
Citations
506 N.W.2d 7141993 WL 387815

Opinion — De Walle

ORDER FOR DISCIPLINE On July 7, 1993, the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of North Dakota filed its Report, which incorporated the findings and recommendations of the Hearing Body. The Disciplinary Board requested this Court to publicly reprimand Thomas W. Robb, a member of the Bar of North Dakota since December 11, 1975, for conduct in his representation of Marvin E. and Nancy White (Whites).

The record shows that a Petition for Discipline was served upon Mr. Robb on July 15, 1992, alleging that Mr. Robb agreed to represent the Whites in a bankruptcy matter but never completed the work. Mr. Robb, responding to the Petition, served his Answer on August 5, 1992. The matter was brought before a Hearing Body of the Disciplinary Board at a regularly scheduled meeting on January 6, 1993.

The Hearing Body found that Mr. Robb agreed to represent the Whites in a bankruptcy matter for which he was paid $690; $600 for attorney’s fees and $90 for the Bankruptcy Court filing fee. Mr. Robb prepared a bankruptcy petition but it was never completed, never executed by the Whites, and never filed with the Bankruptcy Court.

The Hearing Body further found that Mr. Robb’s conduct violated Disciplinary Rule (DR) 7-101(A)(l) and (2), Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), by failing to seek the lawful objectives of his client and failing to carry out a contract of employment entered into with a client. The Hearing Body also found violations of Rule 1.3, 1.4(a), and 1.5, Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC), which require a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, make reasonable efforts to keep a client informed about the status of a matter, promptly comply with a client’s reasonable request, and charge reasonable fees for his services.

In addition, the Hearing Body found that aggravating conditions existed in that Mr. Robb has been disciplined on three prior occasions. On November 23,1983, Mr. Robb was privately reprimanded for failing to pay an account. On October 16, 1990, Mr. Robb was privately reprimanded for failing to make reasonable efforts to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter, engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud deceit, or misrepresentation, and failing to have a written contingency fee agreement on an insurance matter. On October 24,1991, Mr. Robb was privately reprimanded for failing to proceed with reasonable diligence in representing and communicating with a client.

Consequently, the Hearing Body recommended that Mr. Robb be publicly reprimanded, pay restitution to the Whites in the amount of $690, and pay the reasonable costs *715 of the disciplinary proceedings in the amount of $627.49. The Hearing Body submitted its Report to the Disciplinary Board at its regularly scheduled meeting on June 30, 1993. The Disciplinary Board unanimously adopted the Findings and Recommendations of the Hearing Body and on July 7, 1993 filed its Report with the Supreme Court.

On September 14, 1993, a Stipulation and Consent to Discipline signed by Mr. Robb, Mr. Brian Nelson, Mr. Robb’s attorney, and Ms. Vivian E. Berg, Disciplinary Counsel, was filed with the Supreme Court. In the Stipulation and Consent to Discipline, Mr. Robb agreed to the discipline recommended by the Disciplinary Board. The Court considered the matter, and ORDERED, that Mr. Robb be publicly reprimanded.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Mr. Robb pay restitution to Marvin E. and Nancy White in the amount of $690 and pay the reasonable costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceedings in the amount of $627.49.

/a/ Gerald W. VandeWalle GERALD W. VANDE WALLE, Chief Justice /s/ Herbert L. Meschke HERBERT L. MESCHKE, Justice /s/ Beryl J. Levine BERYL J. LEVINE, Justice /s/ William A. Neumann WILLIAM A. NEUMANN, Justice /s/ Dale V. Sandstrom DALE V. SANDSTROM, Justice

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1997: 21999: 12000: 12005: 219972026peak 1997 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re Disciplinary Action Against Anseth1997 ND 66, 562 N.W.2d 385
  2. In re Disciplinary Action Against Edin2005 ND 109, 697 N.W.2d 727
  3. Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court v. Edin2005 ND 109, 697 N.W.2d 727
  4. Disciplinary Board v. Robb1999 ND 161, 598 N.W.2d 808
  5. Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of North Dakota v. Robb2000 ND 194, 618 N.W.2d 721
  6. Service Oil, Inc. v. Chabot1997 ND 74, 562 N.W.2d 571

Most recent

  1. In re Disciplinary Action Against Edin2005 ND 109, 697 N.W.2d 727
  2. Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court v. Edin2005 ND 109, 697 N.W.2d 727
  3. Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of North Dakota v. Robb2000 ND 194, 618 N.W.2d 721
  4. Disciplinary Board v. Robb1999 ND 161, 598 N.W.2d 808
  5. Service Oil, Inc. v. Chabot1997 ND 74, 562 N.W.2d 571
  6. In re Disciplinary Action Against Anseth1997 ND 66, 562 N.W.2d 385

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list