## Facts

- A Minnesota attorney (admitted 1987; no prior discipline) represented a severely injured plaintiff in a personal-injury jury trial arising from a school bus accident.
- The presiding judge’s law clerk, who had a severe disability, worked in the courtroom in view of the jury using a wheelchair and respirator, assisted by an attendant.
- The attorney and client believed jurors might compare the clerk’s ability to work with the plaintiff’s claimed work limitations, harming the plaintiff’s damages case.
- During trial, the attorney moved for a mistrial (or alternative relief) seeking to exclude the law clerk from the courtroom because of the clerk’s disability; the judge denied the motion.
- After the jury returned a defense verdict, the attorney moved for a new trial, again objecting to the clerk’s presence; the motion cited no supporting legal authority.
- The trial judge filed a complaint with the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility.
- The Director issued a private admonition; after de novo review, a Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board Panel found violations of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 3.1 and 8.4(d) and affirmed/amended the admonition.
- The attorney appealed the admonition as of right; the judge sought discretionary review to pursue public discipline. The Minnesota Supreme Court consolidated the matters.

## Issues

1. Whether the Panel clearly erred in finding that seeking to exclude a disabled law clerk (or obtain mistrial/new trial on that basis) violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).
2. Whether the Panel acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably in imposing a private admonition rather than pursuing public discipline.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the Panel’s determination that the attorney violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(d).
- The court left undisturbed the Panel’s finding of a Rule 3.1 violation based on the lack of legal support for the motions.
- The court affirmed the sanction of a private admonition, holding it was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable under the circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- A motion targeting a court employee’s participation or presence based on disability can constitute conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice under Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(d).
- Filing or renewing motions without a supporting legal basis may violate Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 3.1 (meritorious claims and contentions).
- The court defers to a disciplinary panel’s findings and discipline if supported by the record and not clearly erroneous or arbitrary/capricious.
- A private admonition may be appropriate for isolated, non-serious misconduct, even where the conduct reflects disability-based discrimination, depending on context and disciplinary history.

## Conclusion

The court upheld professional discipline where an attorney sought trial relief premised on excluding a severely disabled law clerk, concluding the conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice and that a private admonition fell within the Panel’s reasonable discretion.


In re Charges of Unprofessional Conduct Contained in Panel Case No. 15976, 653 N.W.2d 452 (Minn. 2002)