## Facts

- Donald D. Becker was a North Dakota attorney who previously had been disbarred in Arizona; he disclosed that disbarment to North Dakota authorities and had no other disciplinary history in North Dakota.
- Becker represented Dennis Mees in multiple matters, including a fraud-related matter.
- After Mees was arrested, police confiscated Mees’s jewelry and shipped it to Becker.
- Becker obtained an appraisal stating the jewelry’s approximate retail value was $5,500 and its fair market value was $2,250.
- Becker left the jewelry in the console of his car, and it was stolen.
- Becker and Mees agreed Becker would compensate Mees through additional legal services rather than paying cash.
- Becker asserted Mees later agreed Becker’s legal work exceeded the jewelry’s value, and Becker sent Mees an itemized statement totaling about $6,400.
- Mees accused Becker of stealing the jewelry and filed a disciplinary complaint.
- A hearing panel of the Disciplinary Board considered whether Becker violated the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct requiring a lawyer to safeguard client property.
- Becker presented his appraisal; Mees offered an $8,840 appraisal that the panel rejected as not credible because the appraiser had not seen the jewelry and had given Mees blank letterhead.
- The panel found Becker’s fee was reasonable, but also found Becker was negligent in safeguarding the jewelry; because of the loss and the circumstances, the jewelry’s value could no longer be reliably determined.
- The panel concluded Becker’s negligence caused injury or potential injury to Mees and reflected badly on the legal profession, treated Becker’s Arizona disbarment as an aggravating factor, and recommended a public reprimand and assessment of costs.
- The Disciplinary Board adopted the recommendation and submitted it to the North Dakota Supreme Court; Becker objected, arguing a private reprimand was proper because his services exceeded the jewelry’s value.

## Issues

1. Whether an attorney commits professional misconduct by negligently failing to safeguard client property even when the attorney claims the client was later compensated through legal services of equal or greater value.
2. Whether a public reprimand (rather than a private reprimand) is an appropriate sanction when the negligence caused injury or potential injury and the attorney has a prior out-of-state disbarment.

## Decision

- The North Dakota Supreme Court accepted the Disciplinary Board’s recommendation.
- The court concluded Becker violated his professional duty to safeguard client property through negligent handling that resulted in the property’s loss.
- The court rejected Becker’s argument that an alleged offset through legal services eliminated injury or potential injury, especially where the loss and uncertainty about value were consequences of the negligent safekeeping.
- The court imposed a public reprimand and assessed costs against Becker.

## Legal Principles

- A lawyer has a duty to safeguard a client’s property in the lawyer’s possession; negligent safekeeping that results in loss constitutes misconduct.
- Disciplinary sanctions may be imposed for negligence that causes injury or potential injury; actual proof of a net monetary loss is not required.
- Later efforts to compensate a client (including by providing legal services) do not erase the misconduct of failing to protect client property, nor do they eliminate the risk of harm created by the loss and resulting uncertainty.
- Prior discipline in another jurisdiction may be considered as an aggravating factor when selecting an appropriate sanction.
- A public reprimand is an appropriate sanction for negligent mishandling of client property when the conduct creates injury or potential injury to the client or to the legal profession and aggravating factors are present.

## Conclusion

The North Dakota Supreme Court publicly reprimanded Becker and assessed costs because he negligently failed to safeguard Mees’s jewelry, creating at least potential harm and uncertainty about the property’s value, and Becker’s prior Arizona disbarment supported a public sanction rather than private discipline.


Disciplinary Board v. Becker, 504 N.W.2d 303 (1993)