Home   Federal Cases   State Cases   News   Search   Cart   Log In 
 
Search 591,342 Cases and Articles on TJV!
 
Minnesota State Categories







In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Lawrence Walter Ulanowski

Case No. A10-0819 (MS S.Ct., aug. 3, 2011)

The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility petitions our court to take disciplinary action against Minnesota lawyer Lawrence Walter Ulanowski. The Director alleges several instances of misconduct occurring in multiple matters over a period of three years. The allegations include: making misrepresentations to the district court, filing frivolous claims, violating court rules, harassing opposing counsel, improperly withdrawing from the representation of a client, improperly threatening criminal prosecution, failing to inform clients of a settlement offer, failing to timely return client materials, making misrepresentations to the Director, and refusing to cooperate in the Director’s investigation. We conclude that all of the referee’s findings of fact and most of the referee’s conclusions of law were not clearly erroneous. But we conclude that the referee’s recommended discipline—suspension for a minimum of six months—is not sufficient to protect the public, protect the legal profession, and deter future misconduct. Therefore, we indefinitely suspend Lawrence Walter Ulanowski from the practice of law for a minimum of one year.

On March 30, 2010, the Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility petitioned our court to impose discipline on Minnesota lawyer Lawrence Walter Ulanowski. The Director alleged Ulanowski, a lawyer admitted to the Minnesota bar in December 2001, committed numerous violations of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct. We appointed a referee to make findings of fact and conclusions of law, and to recommend appropriate discipline.

After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the referee concluded that Ulanowski violated several Rules of Professional Conduct during his representation in five client matters, his personal marriage dissolution, and the Director’s investigation. We will address the facts of these matters in turn.

K.H. Matter



Ulanowski was an acquaintance, friend, and lawyer for K.H. and E.H., a married couple. When K.H. and E.H. began marriage dissolution proceedings, Ulanowski initially represented E.H., the husband but was later disqualified from representation. Ulanowski subsequently sued K.H. pro se to compel her to sign a deed—a signature that Ulanowski unsuccessfully sought to obtain while he represented E.H. The verified complaint in this action stated that Ulanowski was “acting on behalf of all property owners involved” with the property at issue. This statement was false, because K.H. and her parents were owners of the property at issue, and they did not authorize Ulanowski to sue K.H. on their behalf. The referee concluded that when Ulanowski filed the complaint he knew his statement was false.
 

 

Judge(s): Per Curiam
Jurisdiction: Minnesota Supreme Court
Supreme Court Judge(s)
Barry Anderson
Paul Anderson
Christopher Dietzen
Lorie Gildea
Helen Meyer
Alan Page
David Stras

 
Appellant Lawyer(s) Appellant Law Firm(s)
Timothy Burke Office of the Minnesota Lawyers Professional Responsibility
Martin Cole Office of the Minnesota Lawyers Professional Responsibility

 
Appellee Lawyer(s) Appellee Law Firm(s)
Kellen Fish

 

CUSTOM EMAIL ALERTS!

With your FREE registration, you can select an unlimited number of Alert categories for daily, weekly or monthly deliveries of the Federal and State Cases most relevant
to you!

Click Here to sign up.

 



Click the maroon box above for a formatted PDF of the decision.
change, that he is fit to practice law, and that future misconduct is unlikely to occur. cited rules that obviously did not apply, such as the minnesota rules of criminal sanctioned ulanowski $10,859.50. the referee concluded that as of the date of the was responsible for failing to return client materials for more than 10 months after the findings, the director issued 10 notices of investigation and complaint in less than two statements to court, knowingly offered false evidence, failed to supervise an assistant, of professional conduct. ulanowski was consistently late and belligerent in responding to court rules. knowingly violating court rules is a violation of rule 3.4(c),11 personal marital dissolution matter re coleman, the attorney was ordered to pay fees based on his failure to complete assistant director had "no basis in fact." we decline to distinguish graham based solely aggravating factor." rebeau, 787 n.w.2d at 174. of misconduct, violated multiple rules of professional conduct, and committed multiple matters." fourth, the misconduct was intentional. fifth, ulanowski has experience in punish the attorney, but rather to protect the public, protect the judicial system, and deter owed for legal fees and retract from all sources her statements about me and more ulanowski challenges the referee's conclusion that he failed to protect j.i.'s that the attorney's failure to inform his client of a settlement offer from opposing counsel 7 the director had to move for an order to compel before ulanowski responded. third, the practice of law for a minimum of one year. were either dismissed or withdrawn. rule 1.4(a)(1), mrpc, provides that a "lawyer shall . . . promptly inform the client on march 30, 2010, the director of the office of lawyers professional aggravating factors cumulative weight of the disciplinary violations; (3) the harm to the public; and (4) the supplement incomplete and misleading responses during discovery, by ulanowski's motions had the aforementioned flaws, lacked any legal and factual basis, removed and because the process was "intensely emotional" for him. although there copying costs. seventh, ulanowski repeatedly requested that the assistant director we have said that "[w]hen noncooperation exists in connection with other specifically about my children, i will consult with counsel about pursuing criminal 307, 312 (minn. 2010) (stating that responding with "only a vague denial" and other in an action against k.h. engaging in frivolous claims or lawsuits violates rules 3.1,6 offer, fails to timely return client materials, makes misrepresentations to the director, and allegation in this case similar to his past misconduct; namely, he charged a client for ulanowski filed four petitions for ofps against k.a.r., her boyfriend, and her parents. failed to timely respond to the charges against him and to multiple discovery requests. "context" that resulted in the referee feeling some "sympathy" for ulanowski's position. disciplinary investigation and making misrepresentations to the director are violations of 11 members during the suspension, and be reinstated only upon completion of several conclusions of law. of clients for whom the firm was to stop working until bills were paid. the record walter ulanowski. the director alleged ulanowski, a lawyer admitted to the minnesota 9 misconduct, the noncooperation increases the severity of the disciplinary sanction as an the record supports the referee's conclusion that ulanowski violated the rules of of law, and to recommend appropriate discipline. when he withdrew from representing a client with cognitive and memory issues less than the referee devoted several pages of his findings of fact to describing ulanowski's the grounds that it was confidential, even though rule 1.6(b)(8) of the minnesota rules and we will use prior decisions to ensure consistent discipline, even though we impose j.n. j.n. allegedly made several defamatory statements about ulanowski's conduct before the affidavit was submitted. moreover, ulanowski or someone in ulanowski's by letter, ulanowski requested that the district court allow him to move to amend 8.4(c), mrpc. 2 ulanowski made repeated attempts to avoid supplying the requested information. rule 4.1, mrpc, provides that "[i]n the course of representing a client a lawyer ulanowski did not offer evidence that misconduct would not occur again in the future. the day before. we conclude that the referee did not clearly err in concluding ulanowski mother. the referee's finding that ulanowski knew the affidavit was false was not 3 obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion nevertheless, he argues that his prior admonition should not be an aggravating factor, but 16 2006) (finding a clear violation of rules 1.3 and 1.4, mrpc, when attorney did not of probation." we conclude that a one-year suspension, together with the other individual matters described above. we conclude that none of the findings of fact were 621 n.w.2d 460, 466 (minn. 2001) (suspending attorney indefinitely for improper be untimely, and "not made in good faith," because the motion "was a mere recitation of next, ulanowski challenges the referee's conclusion that he failed to return client that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification, v.s. matter personal marital dissolution matter ulanowski because ulanowski was "becoming increasingly confrontational, hostile," and counts in the complaint were frivolous and lacked a legal and factual basis. the court we conclude the referee did not recognized that returning the file was his responsibility. clearly erroneous. therefore lacked standing. to the facts and implicitly challenges many of the referee's findings of fact. therefore, in the claim in the affidavit was false. the referee also concluded that ulanowski's action this section we will address all of ulanowski's challenges, explicit and implicit, to the see in re tancabel, 792 n.w.2d 835, 835 (minn. 2011) (suspending an attorney should have had knowledge that a letter from opposing counsel had arrived in his office 28 the judge voluntarily recuse. but ulanowski never requested that the judge voluntarily aware that i will aggressively pursue criminal charges against [j.n.]," and further stated 578, 586 (minn. 2003) ("we have imposed indefinite suspensions in similar cases where we first address ulanowski's challenges to the referee's findings of fact and investigation of the subject matter of this case would have revealed this" document, and on december 15, 2008, ulanowski told j.i. he would withdraw from affidavits also stated, "my relationship with respondent is that he is the boyfriend of my period of three years. the allegations include: making misrepresentations to the district other violations); in re selmer, 749 n.w.2d 30, 39 (minn. 2008) (stating that public representation within three days unless j.i. paid another $4,000 by december 19, used agency terminated all of ulanowski's accounts with the agency. we conclude that the 787 n.w.2d at 174; grigsby, 764 n.w.2d at 63. such conduct both "warrants indefinite ulanowski's misconduct occurred "over an extended period of time and across multiple ulanowski was a party to his own marital dissolution proceeding. ulanowski does not challenge the referee's conclusion that ulanowski's intentional misconduct is an ulanowski argues that his letter to j.n.'s counsel did not threaten criminal while litigating the k.h. matter, ulanowski repeatedly questioned opposing conclude that ulanowski's argument is meritless. ulanowski's letter stated: "please be mrpc. see in re pinotti, 585 n.w.2d 55, 62 (minn. 1998). ulanowski the director's argument in that matter. additionally, the director made "voluminous" requests because, as the referee noted, initial request was not clearly erroneous. therefore, we conclude that the referee's admitted that he filed the notice to remove knowing it did not comply with the court commenced an action to force k.h. to sign a deed when ulanowski had no interest in the sanction." in re coleman, 793 n.w.2d 296, 308 (minn. 2011). we consider four factors to deliver documents requested by the director. ulanowski took nearly three months to challenge the referee's conclusion that making misrepresentations is an aggravating than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person." but the referee made no findings of of his law firm." the referee made a similar finding, stating that ulanowski "attempts to releasing the attorney fees judgment. id. court, filing frivolous claims, violating court rules, harassing opposing counsel, copying files, but did not return the original file for more than ten months. therefore, we withdrawal, among other violations); in re hawkins, 502 n.w.2d 770, 771 (minn. 1993) opposing counsel, intimidate and demean witnesses and obfuscate the record." 414 months. ulanowski argues the appropriate sanction is "admonishment and/or some type the court were made in the k.h. and k.a.r. matters. the misrepresentations to the court sue k.h. on their behalf. the referee concluded that when ulanowski filed the complaint ulanowski committed misconduct, but that all of his misconduct in this matter was done ulanowski shall not represent himself, his law firm, or family members. ulanowski shall which prohibits an attorney from using methods "that have no substantial purpose other acts that aggravate his sanction. therefore, we order that attorney lawrence walter 19 should be excused because of an "emotional" process. we conclude that the referee did fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer." respond to three other complaints. re albrecht, 660 n.w.2d 790, 796 (minn. 2003), we concluded that the attorney's prior motion to remove the director and his assistant not only from his case, but also from fee dispute, ulanowski said that "[i]f [j.n.] does not agree to pay me the $40,000.00 assess ulanowski's credibility whenever ulanowski may have acknowledged wrong- mitigating factors 787 n.w.2d at 176. more severe sanctions are appropriate when the current misconduct v.s. matter respond to a complaint, one month to deny an allegation made in a complaint, more than balance due on legal fees by december 31. j.i. did not signal his agreement to these new investigation, ulanowski misrepresented who terminated the relationship between 21 e. refusal to cooperate with the director's investigation director was an aggravating factor. ulanowski did not abide by the applicable rules because the notice was untimely and did 414 n.w.2d 394, 397-99 (minn. 1987) (reprimanding an attorney for using a racial slur false statement of fact or law to a tribunal, or fail to correct a false statement of material submitting frivolous claims is conduct also subject to sanctions. we have held referee's findings of fact to explain the conduct. but ulanowski never responded to a failure to cooperate with the director's investigation by making for a minimum of 90 days for failing to timely return original client documents, among k.a.r. matter did not have a significant impact. rather it appears to have been a backhanded tactic to get a result that was not required by under the mrpc. but the director correctly notes that ulanowski's argument does not argument does not alter our analysis. rudawski, 710 n.w.2d 264, 268 (minn. 2006). the referee listed ten misrepresentations makes misrepresentations to the district court, submits frivolous claims, violates court criminal prosecution, failing to inform clients of a settlement offer, failing to timely told ulanowski about the document, the district court concluded that "even a cursory mrpc, was not clearly erroneous. the complaint, move for reconsideration, or move for a rehearing. the court denied his received all of the relief she requested. at the disciplinary hearing, ulanowski claimed martin a. cole, director, timothy m. burke, senior assistant director, office of d. misrepresentations failures to cooperate violated rule 8.1(b), mrpc, and rule 25, rlpr); grigsby, 764 mistake occurred in a "very emotionally charged situation." ulanowski testified that he finally, ulanowski argues that he provided j.i. ample warning that j.i. would need sanction, two cases are particularly instructive. the case of selmer involved similar voluminous" requests for information, as indicated by the number of pages in the 30 judicial proceedings, and refusing to make court-ordered payments." 542 n.w.2d 627, because j.i.'s mother was heavily involved in j.i.'s legal affairs, which he asserts o p i n i o n mrpc, and rule 25, rules on lawyers professional responsibility (rlpr). the referee aggravating factor. 12 different types of misconduct, resulting in the violation of 12 different rules--and march 25, 2009, which stated that his mother had an ownership interest in part of the letter notifying the district court that he had requested the hearing date be rescheduled brought frivolous claims in the k.h. and v.s. matters, and in his personal marital rules, but nevertheless, he did so with the intent that the judge would voluntarily recuse. ulanowski challenges the referee's conclusion that he submitted frivolous claims mrpc. see in re winter, 770 n.w.2d 463, received a letter from opposing counsel the day before. the referee concluded that 10 threat of criminal prosecution in order to recover attorney fees for an unrelated civil cost opposing parties about $46,000 in legal fees, as well as time, to settle the matters.18 opposing parties in the k.h. and j.n. matters. we agree with the referee and conclude 2004). we have also held that multiple acts of misconduct, including past disciplinary making misrepresentations can be considered an aggravating factor. see in re information. for example, ulanowski claimed that he terminated the working erroneous. disciplinary history should have been an aggravating factor, and that instituting conclude that the referee's recommended discipline--suspension for a minimum of six ulanowski's law firm and a collection agency. the record includes testimony from the in some responses, ulanowski provided what the referee concluded was false were no formal motions made to this effect by ulanowski, ulanowski sent several letters 7 professional conduct when he threatened j.n. with criminal prosecution. ulanowski's rlpr. the referee did not clearly err in factoring j.i.'s cognitive and memory issues into his claims to the district court. as previously noted, engaging in frivolous claims or lawsuits j.n. matter history, warrant a more severe sanction. see in re fett, 790 n.w.2d 840, 851 (minn. 1990), we stated that an attorney "compounded" his violations by filing a frivolous misrepresentations and submitting untimely responses merits suspension. rebeau, apt to occur pursuant to rule 18, rlpr. ulanowski represented v.s. and 11 other plaintiffs in an action to establish an re aitken, 787 n.w.2d 152, 158 (minn. 2010). history of disciplinary action that involved the same parties. see id. at 628 & n.1. conclude that the referee's conclusion that this conduct violated rules 3.3(a)(1), 4.1, and making the same request. and, according to the referee, these personal attacks on the relevant document until the day of the motion hearing. however, v.s. testified that he an attorney's frivolous attempt to remove the assistant director from his a10-0819 property at issue and that she authorized ulanowski to act on her behalf. this claim was ulanowski read the affidavits and submitted them knowing they contained false ulanowski argues that his requests to remove the assistant director should not be available and why." id. at 62. the attorney was suspended for 60 days. id. at 63. here, was also frivolous because it was untimely and based on inapplicable rules. it was not appeal this issue, but his appeal was untimely. the referee not only concluded that because the district court did not issue sanctions for initiating a frivolous claim. we the nature of ulanowski's misconduct involves various actions and various levels or over the telephone. we conclude that the referee did not clearly err in finding that finally, ulanowski challenges the referee's conclusion that he harassed opposing 11 withdrawing; improperly threatening criminal prosecution; failing to inform clients of a rule 3.4(c), mrpc, provides that a "lawyer shall not . . . knowingly disobey an that ulanowski violated rule 8.4(d) when he threatened j.n. with criminal prosecution. a. multiple acts over an extended period of time and in multiple matters to . . . engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation." ________________________ the district court issued an order that established the amounts to be paid by ulanowski in case no. 17289, 669 n.w.2d 898, 905 (minn. 2003).8 to . . . engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice." professional responsibility examination; satisfaction of continuing legal education rule 3.1, mrpc, provides that a "lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, discipline was warranted when attorney failed to pay an outstanding wisconsin record and are not clearly erroneous." id. (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks rule 8.4(c), mrpc, provides that "[i]t is professional misconduct for a lawyer and should not be used as an aggravating factor. the statement that ulanowski an attorney in ulanowski's office represented j.n. in a marital dissolution. this "reasonable requests" for information, and violating the rule is unprofessional conduct the referee filed his findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation for that no valid obligation exists." disciplinary case is an aggravating factor. in in re graham, 453 n.w.2d 313, 325 (minn. racial discrimination; . . . failed to acknowledge the wrongful conduct of but ulanowski states that he "understands he is responsible for the actions, or inactions, means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third conduct during disciplinary investigation the information requests have been satisfied, and that the director made "numerous and 793 n.w.2d 296, 303 (minn. 2011). we will "give great deference to the referee's repeatedly and knowingly filed untimely motions in this proceeding. on april 17, 2007, sincere, or was done in conjunction with blaming others. we conclude that the referee's 12 violation of rule 4.4(a), we conclude that the application of rule 4.4(a) to the k.a.r. in support of his claim, ulanowski submitted an affidavit from his mother, dated referee's findings and conclusions were clearly erroneous. attorney for failing to inform client of plea offer, among other violations); in re fuller, appropriate. the attempt to remove the judge does not appear to be in "good faith," but threat from ulanowski and stated that, as a result, she would not speak with him in person 9 also false, because ulanowski's mother had sold her property interest more than one year 4.4, mrpc by "continually interrupting the chairman" of the panel of the lawyers violating court rules in multiple matters; harassing of opposing counsel; improperly ulanowski missed deadlines repeatedly, and misrepresented certain information to the effective 14 days from the date of filing of this opinion. during the suspension, ulanowski challenges the referee's conclusion that ulanowski's responses to the clients. the referee found that certain communications between ulanowski and k.h.'s multiple violations of some rules. moreover, this misconduct occurred over the course of assigned to his case be removed, fired, suspended, or disbarred. eighth, ulanowski did offer violates rule 1.4(a)(1),12 rules 8.1(b),13 statements of fact in attempts to advance his own interests, and by engaging j.i.'s cognitive and memory issues when deciding whether ulanowski adequately within 14 days, and ulanowski never submitted a response within this time frame.2 harm to the legal profession." in re nelson, 733 n.w.2d 458, 463 (minn. 2007). we will conclusion that his multiple acts of misconduct is an aggravating factor. ulanowski's experience in a contentious divorce proceeding. the referee also noted that, in dishonest conduct. future misconduct. therefore, we indefinitely suspend lawrence walter ulanowski from burden a third person. therefore, because there are no facts in the record that support a issue a refund. the referee concluded that ulanowski blamed his staff but ultimately statement was "made for no substantial purpose and was harassing and burdensome." v.s. and other clients of a settlement offer. failing to inform a client of a settlement and not family members, to make decisions on the client's behalf"). we conclude that settlement offer, to properly withdraw, and to abide by court rules are considered moved the court to award costs. the court granted the motion, concluding that all five the director requests ulanowski's indefinite suspension be for at least 18 misconduct. see 568 n.w.2d at 702. in selmer, we concluded that a 12-month familiar with the law." fett, 790 n.w.2d at 851. ulanowski was admitted to practice one "frivolous, vexatious lawsuit"). in in re selmer, 568 n.w.2d 702, 704 (minn. 1997), education requirements, and presented proof by clear and convincing evidence that he has we now turn to the appropriate discipline. the purpose of discipline is not to ulanowski challenges the referee's conclusion that he improperly threatened j.n. initially represented e.h., the husband but was later disqualified from representation. 6 nature of the misconduct additionally, ulanowski was sanctioned by the district court in the v.s. matter for these factors included ulanowski's vision and mobility issues, a chronic illness, and matters, his personal marriage dissolution, and the director's investigation. we will inform client of a plea offer); in re grzybek, 567 n.w.2d 259, 263 (minn. 1997) (holding civil matter); in re sullivan, 452 n.w.2d 645, 646 (minn. 1990). we have held that most pieces of information, and the director was processing numerous different conditions recommended by the referee, is the appropriate sanction. recommended discipline, we retain ultimate responsibility for determining the appropriate 6 that if j.n. did not agree to ulanowski's settlement terms, he would "proceed forward on conclude that the referee did not clearly err when concluding that ulanowski's prior ii. because the request for sanctions did not conform to minn. r. civ. p. 11.03, not for lack 29 ulanowski does not challenge the referee's findings of fact or conclusions of law that withdrawing from representation 11 days before a hearing violated rule 1.16(d). mitigating factors undergone moral change, that he is fit to practice law, and that future misconduct is not instances in which ulanowski shifts the blame for his actions onto others, including his was in the best position to note whether the attempts to remove the assistant director we also conclude that the record supports the referee's conclusion that ulanowski and suspending the attorney for six months for engaging in conduct that had no the proceedings and now challenges many of the referee's findings of fact and relationship, we conclude that the notice was less than adequate. additionally, if j.i.'s ulanowski took more than $20,000 from j.i. before withdrawing as his counsel, requiring violated rules 8.4(c) and (d), mrpc, and rule 25, rlpr). address the facts of these matters in turn. of fact and most of the referee's conclusions of law were not clearly erroneous. but we conclusion that there are no mitigating factors is not clearly erroneous. information. in the k.h. matter, ulanowski, on two separate occasions, took two months clearly erroneous, and most of the referee's applications of the mrpc were not clearly responsible for misrepresentations contained in an affidavit he submitted to the district mrpc. more disclosed in a disciplinary investigation. professional responsibility board and by calling "the panel chairman, a lawyer, `a imposing ethical sanctions differ from considerations of rule 11 sanctions." in re panel 628 (minn. 1996). jensen, however, involved an attorney with a longer and more serious of professional conduct (mrpc) specifically allows for confidential information to be ulanowski subsequently sued k.h. pro se to compel her to sign a deed--a signature that client, improperly threatens criminal prosecution, fails to inform clients of a settlement prosecution, but merely indicated an intention to consult a criminal attorney. we representation resulted in a fee dispute, which became personal between ulanowski and ________________________ k.h. matter more than three years. ulanowski also has a disciplinary history that includes receiving in the k.a.r. matter served no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or and refusing to cooperate in the director's investigation. 19 in re petition for disciplinary action making misrepresentations is subject to discipline. we have stated that "[s]evere sanction because the affidavits were incorrect due to a "clerical mistake," and because the filed a number of claims or counterclaims in separate proceedings alleging indicate a good faith effort to comply with the director's requests for information. ulanowski at 176. ulanowski disagrees with the referee's conclusions that he did not express violates rules 3.3(a)(1),3 for court intervention arises." director assigned to his case, and repeatedly demanded that the director assign his case to rule 25, rlpr, states that a lawyer under investigation has a duty to comply with petition for an order for protection (ofp) against ulanowski. on may 16, 2008, of misconduct. we also concluded that an 18-month suspension was appropriate in in re 4 discipline on november 29, 2010. the referee concluded that ulanowski's actions requirements; and presentation of clear and convincing proof that he has undergone moral counsel. harassing opposing counsel with needless insults and threats violates rule further, ulanowski did not respond to repeated requests to return the documents and to violated the rules of professional conduct in the k.h. matter. ulanowski falsely the referee concluded there were no mitigating factors, but did mention factors as to the facts for clear error. see in re albrecht, 779 n.w.2d 530, 535 (minn. 2010). we id. at 702-03. selmer does not present precisely the same facts, but involves similar acts 34 f. prior disciplinary history also consider mitigating and aggravating circumstances, rebeau, 787 n.w.2d at 173-74, from ulanowski. she subsequently refused to talk on the telephone or sit in a room with ulanowski claims that the referee clearly erred by considering the false n.w.2d at 62 (stating that failure to timely respond and making misrepresentations rule 3.3(a)(1), mrpc, provides that a "lawyer shall not knowingly . . . make a discovery requests. 463 n.w.2d 718, 719 (minn. 1990). the attorney subsequently to provide a $2,000 retainer at the start of ulanowski's representation and at least a information in the affidavits supporting his petitions for ofps when recommending a hearing. ulanowski copied the file and billed v.s. for the copying costs but did not knowingly. we have said that lack of remorse is an aggravating factor. rebeau, 787 n.w.2d law in december 2001, began the full-time practice of law in 2005, and his first act of professional conduct. ulanowski threatened and repeatedly insulted the intelligence of rules of professional conduct. the errors in the affidavits were obvious on reading the 31 sanctions is of limited import in a disciplinary action because "[c]onsiderations for substantial impact on ulanowski's legal practice. months--is not sufficient to protect the public, protect the legal profession, and deter nelson, 733 n.w.2d at 461 (stating an attorney was admonished for improperly $4,000 retainer four weeks before trial. in october 2008, ulanowski requested that j.i. discipline is warranted where a lawyer's conduct is dishonest and lacks integrity." in re representing j.i. j.i. went to trial pro se, and his ex-wife--represented by counsel-- filing a frivolous claim. ulanowski's argument, even if it was valid, would strengthen disciplinary history was an aggravating factor. j.i. matter address the rule violation. the referee found that ulanowski failed to protect his client's violated rules 1.4(a)(1), 1.16(d), 3.1, 3.2, 3.3(a)(1), 3.4(c), 4.1, 4.4, 8.1(b), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), misconduct in this case occurred in 2007. ulanowski does not challenge the referee's fact, and we do not see facts on our own review of the record, that ulanowski's behavior materials in a timely manner. failing to return client materials in a timely manner state of minnesota disgrace to our profession.' " id. at 398. k.a.r. matter comply with rule 26, rlpr (requiring notice of suspension to clients, opposing counsel, minnesota attorney, registration filed: august 3, 2011 misrepresented facts to the district court. knowingly misrepresenting facts to a court conclusions of law. when a party orders a transcript of the disciplinary hearing, the made frivolous claims and violated court rules in violation of rules 3.1, 3.2, 3.4(c), court to take disciplinary action against minnesota lawyer lawrence walter ulanowski. represented to the district court that he was acting on behalf of all property owners and to determine the appropriate discipline: "(1) the nature of the misconduct; (2) the underlying property. ulanowski appears to argue that his claim was not frivolous the referee also concluded there were several aggravating factors, some of which provide responses based on the director's handling of a complaint lodged by ulanowski, the criminal charges against" j.n. the referee did not clearly err in finding that 2009, ulanowski moved to amend the april 2007 order. the court found the motion to 755 n.w.2d 282, 291 (minn. 2008) (stating that violations were aggravated by the order, and in october 2007, ulanowski filed an amended motion. both of these filings harassing opposing counsel may also subject an attorney to discipline.17 in april 21, 2008, for conditioning the return of a client file upon payment for the return the original documents until more than ten months after the initial request. we hold that the referee did not clearly err in concluding ulanowski's actions during the refuses to adequately cooperate in the director's investigation. an attorney, when representing a client with diminished capacity, "must look to the client, k.h. matter attorney also "actively misrepresented to the director what information was and was not "proceed forward on the criminal charges against" j.n. the referee concluded the 8 advance payment of fees or expenses that has not been earned or incurred." referee to conclude that ulanowski violated rule 4.4(a), mrpc. 8 conclude that this argument is meritless. first, the court declined to issue sanctions therefore, ulanowski does not rule 8.1(b), mrpc, provides that a lawyer "in connection with a disciplinary and 8.4(c),5 payments. in early december, ulanowski requested that j.i. pay the outstanding balance ulanowski explicitly challenges many of the referee's applications of the mrpc 36 ulanowski next challenges the referee's conclusion that he knowingly violated director. him unless he is acting in his official capacity as an attorney. the referee concluded that of severity: making misrepresentations to the court, submitting frivolous claims, and violated several rules of professional conduct during his representation in five client ulanowski's misconduct merits the imposition of a serious sanction. professional conduct. we appointed a referee to make findings of fact and conclusions that suspension is appropriate when an attorney files one frivolous, vexatious lawsuit. in findings of fact and will not reverse those findings if they have evidentiary support in the office. reinstatement for a minimum of one year is the appropriate sanction when a lawyer mrpc. in in re milloy, we affirmed a conclusion k.a.r. matter recuse, and ulanowski's motion did not provide any reasons why recusal would be misconduct subject to sanctions.16 and attempted to have the assistant director removed from his case. these acts do not harm to the public and the legal profession confidence in the legal system. in re hawkins, 502 n.w.2d 770, 771 (minn. 1993). another instance, ulanowski refused to respond to correspondence from the assistant in one matter, ulanowski received an extension and provided the requested a different assistant director. ulanowski also refused to supply requested information on while scheduling a hearing on the frivolous action against k.h., ulanowski sent a referee's findings on any of these misrepresentations.19 h. failure to acknowledge wrongfulness or express remorse motions were frivolous and violated court rules. therefore, we conclude that the referee ulanowski asserts he did not know that his mother's affidavit falsely stated that matter, however, carries minimal impact. we already concluded that ulanowski violated conduct when the attorney engaged "in calculated trial tactics to provoke and bait and tribunals), and shall pay costs and disbursements pursuant to rule 24, rlpr. 14 not happen again. assuming that ulanowski's contentions are true, ulanowski faces an j.n. matter complexities of j.i.'s case, and ulanowski also knew j.i. suffered from a mild traumatic remorse or acknowledge the wrongfulness of his actions. but there are numerous the matter, v.s. made a request that ulanowski return all original documents to him at the to either pay his bills or retain alternate counsel. ulanowski increased his retainer brain injury that caused cognitive and memory issues. in a retainer agreement, j.i. agreed more than three years, involving five different client matters plus his personal marriage 1 that these actions harmed the public and the legal profession. blame his staff for this failure, but admits that it is his responsibility." therefore, property interest. the referee concluded that ulanowski "either personally or in his recommended for ulanowski's misconduct. first, the referee concluded that ulanowski collection agency owner, and a letter from the collection agency stating that the collection and a ground for discipline. ulanowski asserts that he made a good faith effort to comply, that "most if not all" "clearly violated" rule 1.4, mrpc). testimony supported the referee's finding that the extent of the clients' injuries.' " coleman, 793 n.w.2d at 308 (quoting in re randall, suspension on its own" as well as "increases the sanction imposed when accompanied by these conditions include compliance with rule 26, rlpr; payment of costs, professional conduct. failing to appropriately respond to the director's requests in a three weeks before trial and the client did not obtain substitute counsel for his trial. rule 4.4(a) in the k.h. matter and we agree with the referee that the violation in the 35 conduct, but instead placed blame on clerical errors, his staff, or biased judges. ninth, former spouse," even though that was only true for one of the affidavits. all the petitions or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so rule violations may compel severe discipline even when a single act standing alone would [ulanowski's] former motion, which had been previously denied." ulanowski was again bar in december 2001, committed numerous violations of the minnesota rules of complaint in this action stated that ulanowski was "acting on behalf of all property and 8.4(d),7 467 (minn. 2009). "petitioner's name is [k.a.r.]," when in fact, ulanowski was the petitioner. three c. experience in litigation the legal profession"). there is evidence in the record that ulanowski's frivolous claims 14 investigation. second, during the investigation and disciplinary proceedings, ulanowski benefit ulanowski and were not obviously inaccurate. we conclude that ulanowski's or reversal of existing law." motion did not include a notice of motion stating a time and place for the hearing. the the event that any substantial disputes occur to prepare and attend hearings or the need 32 we conclude that the referee's finding that ulanowski's conduct violated rule 3.4(c), recommended that ulanowski be suspended from the practice of law with no right to n.w.2d 394, 397 (minn. 1987). additionally, we stated that the attorney violated rule b. multiple acts of intentional misconduct 1 maker in matters affecting his representation. see rule 1.14, mrpc, cmt. 3 (stating that his name and attorney license number, and was used in a transaction involving his withdrawal from his representation of j.i. was improper. rules, harasses opposing counsel, improperly withdraws from the representation of a years, not all of which are at issue here. these notices generally required a response j.i. matter we have stated that "the cumulative weight and severity of multiple disciplinary rule 8.4(d), mrpc, provides that "[i]t is professional misconduct for a lawyer s y l l a b u s committed all of these acts of misconduct, which all weigh in favor of a serious sanction. 17 by the person to have arisen in the matter, or knowingly fail to respond to a lawful 4.1,4 land as collateral, and gave j.i. only three days to accept these new terms. because of the conclude that the referee did not clearly err in applying aggravating factors. professional conduct. ulanowski filed a notice to remove a judge in a civil case and case was difficult enough to require such drastic increases in ulanowski's retainer, j.i. june 16, 2008. the referee concluded that ulanowski knew or should have known that cooperate in the director's investigation. we conclude that all of the referee's findings not been accused of violating that rule since, and (3) instituted policies to ensure it did is similar to prior misconduct. in re overboe, 745 n.w.2d 852, 867 (minn. 2008). in in other misconduct." aitken, 787 n.w.2d at 162 (citation omitted) (internal quotation clearly erroneous. indicated, and the referee concluded, that these assertions were false. requirement from $4,000 to $15,000. then, ulanowski gave j.i. new terms, requiring completed the professional responsibility examination, satisfied continuing legal with criminal prosecution. improperly threatening to institute criminal prosecution 2010). with regard to the conclusions of law, we review "the interpretation of the mrpc doing, and the referee was able to conclude whether such an acknowledgement was 15 the referee recommended ulanowski be indefinitely suspended from the practice professional misconduct] requires consideration of `the number of clients harmed [and] terms, and on december 19, 20 days before j.i.'s trial, ulanowski withdrew from she owned a property interest when he submitted the affidavit to the district court because motion to amend his pleadings that violated minn. gen. r. prac. 303.01, because the 18 disciplinary investigation violated rules 8.1(b), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), mrpc, and rule 25, and replenish the retainer to $15,000. by december 12, 2008, j.i. and his family had suspended. committing multiple acts of misconduct over a long period of time is an per curiam. 13 571 n.w.2d 39, 44 (minn. 1997). (footnote continued from previous page.) j.i. to proceed to trial pro se, while his ex-wife was represented by counsel. the referee contained false information and then submitted the affidavits to the district court. we 20 clear error for the referee to conclude these claims were frivolous. erroneous. first, ulanowski downplays the significance of j.i.'s cognitive and memory issues couple. when k.h. and e.h. began marriage dissolution proceedings, ulanowski 2007) (listing past disciplinary history and including threats of criminal prosecution in a aggravating factor. we already addressed this argument. we conclude that the referee's years was an aggravating factor). ulanowski's misconduct occurred over a period of withdrawal violates rule 1.16(d),10 v.s. testified at the disciplinary hearing that ulanowski failed to notify him of a paid ulanowski more than $20,000 in legal fees, but j.i. still owed ulanowski money. attorney were "harassing and insulting" and had "no substantial purpose." dramatic change in the terms of the agreement over the course of their attorney-client request. a little over one month after making the request, ulanowski filed a notice to court because he was not the affiant. ulanowski also stated the mrpc do not apply to referee concluded that ulanowski's claim that he was unable to obtain a hearing date and both of these statements are inconsistent with the mrpc. de novo, and . . . the application of the mrpc to the facts of the case for clear error." in finding. therefore, we conclude that the referee's conclusion that ulanowski violated he knew his statement was false. rule 1.4(a)(1) was not clearly erroneous. relationship between his law firm and a collection agency, and that he did not have a list demeaning: "for some reason something this simple cannot even be understood by director's correspondences during the disciplinary investigation violated the rules of 10 not offer evidence that he regretted or had any shame or remorse with respect to his 25 and did not aid ulanowski. but in the k.h. matter, the misrepresentations were made to similar cases demand for information from an admission or disciplinary authority, except that this rule failing to comply with proper discovery requests, by making false not clearly err in concluding that ulanowski's frivolous attempt to remove the assistant and sanctioned ulanowski $1,500, which he did not pay by the deadline set by the court. discipline based on the unique facts of each case, coleman, 793 n.w.2d at 308. one month to complete a request for information in the j.n. matter, nearly one month to ulanowski was an acquaintance, friend, and lawyer for k.h. and e.h., a married apply for reinstatement for a minimum of six months. ulanowski ordered a transcript of rule 4.4(a), mrpc, provides that "[i]n representing a client, a lawyer shall not use also, ulanowski told the court he had not heard from opposing counsel, when he had or frivolous claims are a waste of the court's resources. see in re albrecht, 779 n.w.2d we have said that "[t]he impact of the harm to the public and the profession [from motion was untimely and cited irrelevant rules, was done in a good-faith attempt to make i. refusal to cooperate with the director's investigation was an aggravating factor was not future misconduct by the disciplined attorney and other attorneys. in re rebeau, conviction that a mistake has been made." in re lyons, 780 n.w.2d 629, 635 (minn. misconduct during the director's disciplinary investigation. to summarize these we suspended an attorney for 12 months based on the attorney's "pattern of frivolous and submitted an affidavit from his mother that falsely stated she owned certain property. conditions.15 in sum, we have reviewed the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law and opposing counsel warned ulanowski that the claims were meritless and sanctions would ulanowski's conduct was a good-faith action within the rules. 787 n.w.2d 168, 173 (minn. 2010). "although we place great weight on the referee's requests for information, and made misrepresentations to the director on two occasions. procedures to avoid future misconduct does not mitigate past misconduct. (publicly reprimanding attorney for failing to follow court rules and lack of writing defined in rule 1.0(f), is required by these rules." coleman, 463 n.w.2d at 719. we conclude that the referee did not clearly err in finding of frivolousness. second, we have held that a decision by a district court to not issue a mitigating factor, because he (1) offered the evidence of the discipline himself, (2) has improperly threatening criminal prosecution and finally, the referee concluded that ulanowski made two statements that "reflect a disciplinary judgment); in re de rycke, 707 n.w.2d 370, 374 (minn. 2006) (disbarring person, or use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a the record supports the referee's conclusion that ulanowski violated the rules of protected j.i.'s interests upon withdrawal from representation. regardless of the rlpr. in re karlsen, 778 n.w.2d violates rule 8.4(d), mrpc. making threats of criminal prosecution in order to coerce ulanowski argues that v.s.'s files were not returned because of "internal office errors." finally, we address cases similar to ulanowski's. in deciding the appropriate against k.h. was frivolous, because he had no property interest in the matter and 22 ulanowski challenges. we review challenges to the facts and the application of the rules clearly err in concluding ulanowski violated rules 3.1, and 8.4(d), mrpc. the referee found several aggravating factors relevant to the sanction he an aggravating factor because he made no formal motions to have the assistant director made 10 misrepresentations or inconsistent statements during the director's conclusion that his experience in litigation matters is an aggravating factor. ulanowski did not inform v.s. of a settlement offer, and ulanowski does not dispute this not provide factual allegations to support a claim that the judge was biased. ulanowski 16 draft the affidavits himself, as he claimed, ulanowski read and signed the affidavits that disciplinary hearing ulanowski had paid only $85 of that sanction. the retainer agreement stated that ulanowski could request "additional retainers in owners, which deed was signed by his mother on october 16, 2007, and recorded on does not require disclosure of information otherwise protected by rule 1.6." in a november 2008 order, the district court directed final judgment be entered j.i.'s parents' land as collateral for the remaining balance, and paid off the remaining opposing counsel's intelligence. further, opposing counsel stated that she perceived a because he conditioned the return of client materials upon payment of copying charges. 4 cause. cf. in re fuller, 621 n.w.2d 460, 466 (minn. 2001) (finding withdrawal from threatened the opposing parties with rico and fraud actions if they did not stipulate to interest upon termination of representation, not that he terminated representation without procedure and the minnesota rules of juvenile procedure. ulanowski knew these rules ulanowski unsuccessfully sought to obtain while he represented e.h. the verified the record also supports the referee's conclusion that ulanowski violated the rules jensen when an attorney "engaged in misconduct consisting of failing to follow the rules person." ulanowski's lack of responses required the director to make at least two requests for on whether a request is a formal motion or a letter to the director. moreover, the referee representation improper, even though withdrawal was required). therefore, this shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law." dissolution and the disciplinary investigation. ulanowski does not challenge the referee's unrelated to the marital dissolution proceedings. in a letter sent to j.n.'s counsel in the ulanowski first challenges the referee's conclusion that he submitted frivolous easement. on june 4, 2009, the district court dismissed the action. the defendants "very unsettling." k.h.'s attorney also received what she believed to be a physical threat threatening "criminal prosecution to coerce payment in a civil matter"); in re williams, staff members and the director's office. moreover, the referee was in the best position to no. 316015. office of appellate courts matter, shall not . . . fail to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension known ulanowski does not actually dispute this fact and the referee's finding that ulanowski because ulanowski was a solo practitioner, any length of suspension would have a conduct lacked honesty and integrity. marks omitted). in grigsby, the attorney failed to respond to the director's requests in a aggravating factors counsel's intelligence by making the following statement, and others that were similarly of civil and appellate procedure, pursuing frivolous claims, making misrepresentations in dissolution matter. challenges, however, is not one of the ten cited by the referee as aggravating factors. concluded that ulanowski exhibited harassing behavior to opposing counsel and argues that his one previous admonition should be a mitigating factor instead of an shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests, such as read the affidavits before he signed them. we conclude that the referee's finding that 17 involvement of j.i.'s mother, j.i. was ulanowski's client and was to be the decision- document, and noncooperation with the director's investigation). misrepresentations to would likely need even more time to retain alternate counsel. therefore, it was not intentional misconduct can aggravate a violation of the rules. see in re varriano, ulanowski's interaction with opposing counsel was harassing. and that he had "not had a response from opposing counsel." but ulanowski's office had are not credible." the deed contains a statement that it was drafted by ulanowski, bears 33 of law for a minimum of six months, be barred from representing himself or family responsibility petitioned our court to impose discipline on minnesota lawyer lawrence 2010); rebeau, 787 n.w.2d at 175. as outlined above, ulanowski committed several and the referee found that final judgment was entered on december 1, 2008. in january ulanowski knew or should have known that his statement to the court was false. candor throughout" the disciplinary proceedings. see also in re nathan, 671 n.w.2d the referee found that in may 2008, ulanowski's former spouse, k.a.r., filed a the rules. we conclude that the referee did not clearly err by refusing to find harassing litigation" and his pattern of "misrepresentation, nondisclosure and lack of conclusion that ulanowski's lack of remorse was an aggravating factor was not clearly an attorney's disciplinary history constitutes an aggravating factor. rebeau, conclude that, except for the rule 4.4(a) violation in the k.a.r. matter, none of the sanctioned $1,500, and he again failed to pay by the deadline. ulanowski attempted to 13 violates rules 3.1, and 8.4(d), mrpc. pinotti, 585 n.w.2d at 62. 26 the director of the office of lawyers professional responsibility petitions our substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person). you . . . ." k.h.'s attorney testified that she found ulanowski's correspondence to be not have warranted such discipline." in re oberhauser, 679 n.w.2d 153, 160 (minn. against lawrence walter ulanowski, a houge, 764 n.w.2d 328, 339 (minn. 2009) (suspending an attorney for minimum of two office had caused to be drafted" the deed, and that "[h]is attempts to disavow the affidavit matter is just as prejudicial to the administration of justice as was the conduct in someone in his office--not himself--had drafted the deed conveying his mother's ulanowski argues that his correspondence with k.h.'s attorney was not analysis of ulanowski's misconduct. ulanowski challenges the referee's conclusion that he knowingly misrepresented ulanowski was also late in providing responses to the director's requests for more referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law are not conclusive. in re coleman, re tieso, 396 n.w.2d 32, 34 (minn. 1986) (ordering a three-month suspension for filing be sought if the matter was not dismissed. moreover, the motion to remove the judge 530, 542 (minn. 2010) (stating that the attorney's neglect "caused the needless return client materials, making misrepresentations to the director, and refusing to because it is assumed that an experienced attorney has had an opportunity to become 4.4(a),9 original jurisdiction per curiam opposing counsel and these actions served no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, based on the record before us, we conclude that ulanowski committed serious acts office drafted the quitclaim deed that conveyed his mother's property interest to different surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled, and refunding any mrpc. cf. in re de rycke, 707 n.w.2d 370, 374 (minn. and juvenile procedure. in addition to citing these inapplicable rules, the notice filed by 3 omitted). a finding is "clearly erroneous" if we are "left with the definite and firm and misleading evidence in response to discovery requests by failing to 8.4(c), 8.4(d), mrpc, and rule 25,14 j.i. retained ulanowski in august 2008 for legal representation in a marital suspension was appropriate when an attorney respond to the complaint in the v.s. matter, and more than a week past the deadline to second, ulanowski argues that he had cause to withdraw from representing j.i. complaints against ulanowski. therefore, the referee's conclusion that ulanowski's "harassing." but ulanowski sent several demeaning letters repeatedly questioning ulanowski previously received an admonition for violating rule 16(g), mrpc after conducting an evidentiary hearing, the referee concluded that ulanowski 8.4(c), mrpc was not clearly erroneous. time was not credible. in july 2007, ulanowski filed a motion to amend the april 2007 remove the judge, citing the rules of criminal procedure, juvenile protective procedure, attorneys engaged in a pattern of harassing and frivolous litigation."). here, ulanowski 4.4(a), and 8.4(d), mrpc. these rules have already been discussed above. ulanowski ulanowski shall not be reinstated to the practice of law until he has successfully in the k.a.r. matter were not as serious, because the statements were obviously incorrect violates rule 1.16(d), mrpc. see in re tancabel, 792 n.w.2d 835, 835 (minn. 2011). mitigated any additional prejudice. but it was not clear error for the referee to consider the referee concluded that there were no mitigating factors. ulanowski only rule 1.16(d), mrpc, provides that "[u]pon termination of representation, a lawyer failing to timely return client materials, to pay sanctions, to inform a client of a 18 notice of investigation and complaint within the original deadline, he initially refused to made by ulanowski that aggravated the sanction, and ulanowski did not challenge the expenditure of judicial resources and the resources of opposing counsel, which harmed 5 fundamental lack of understanding of" the mrpc. ulanowski stated he was not clearly erroneous for the referee to conclude ulanowski violated rule 1.16(d), mrpc, the record also supports the referee's conclusion that ulanowski violated the in three of the affidavits submitted in support of the ofps, ulanowski stated that referee's finding on this fact was not clearly erroneous. delay, or burden opposing counsel. therefore, we conclude it was not clear error for the g. frivolous attempt to remove assistant director payment in a civil matter is misconduct. see in re nelson, 733 n.w.2d 458, 461 (minn. 27 did not apply, but cited them anyway in an attempt to get a judge to voluntarily recuse. ulanowski first challenges the referee's conclusion that he knowingly disbursements, and interest pursuant to rule 24, rlpr; successful completion of the ulanowski specifically challenges the referee's finding that during the 562 n.w.2d 679, 683 (minn. 1997)). failing to follow court rules harms public skills). ulanowski argues that his claims were not frivolous because he did not see a settlement offer; failing to timely return client materials; and making misrepresentations indefinite suspension from the practice of law with no right to petition for the director alleges several instances of misconduct occurring in multiple matters over a we have stated that "[s]ubstantial practice in the law is also an aggravating factor years when the attorney assisted a client in fraudulent conduct, knowingly made false the complexity of the case as a justification.1 matter, knowingly misrepresenting facts to a court violates rules 3.3(a)(1), 4.1, and j.i. and his family made some of the making threats in order to gain a monetary advantage violates rule 8.4(d), mrpc. in in aggravating factor. rebeau, 787 n.w.2d at 176 (finding multiple acts occurring over ten lawyers professional responsibility, st. paul, minnesota, for petitioner. an admonition for violating rule 16(g), mrpc, for conditioning the return of a client's affidavits and did not help ulanowski's cause. even assuming that ulanowski did not 5 the record supports the referee's conclusion that ulanowski violated the rules of owners involved" with the property at issue. this statement was false, because k.h. and timely manner, but did not refuse to provide the information. 764 n.w.2d at 63. the were untimely under minn. r. civ. p. 52.02 and 59.03. the court concluded that facts to the district court in the k.a.r. matter. as noted in the discussion of the k.h. child support and spousal maintenance. after that order was issued, ulanowski filed a asserting claims without a factual basis; and . . . knowingly offered false in supreme court settlement offer and did not return his file in a timely manner. before the final hearing on improperly withdrawing from the representation of a client, improperly threatening intentional misuse of client funds, and intentional frustration of irs efforts). ulanowski giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, factor. charges against [j.n.]." ulanowski added that if he received no response he would she believed ulanowski "was personalizing disputes, personalizing the issues" of their file upon receipt of copying costs. we conclude that the cumulative weight of ulanowski threatened criminal prosecution. the referee did not make a finding on this issue. ulanowski refused to provide information to the director because he disagreed with how ulanowski's brief argues that one statement was not actually a misrepresentation litigation matters. sixth, ulanowski has a prior discipline record based on an admonition conduct during disciplinary investigation in the matter of his personal marriage dissolution. the referee concluded that ulanowski and ratified an assistant's unethical conduct); see also in re aitken, 787 n.w.2d 152, 163 dissolution proceeding that included child custody issues. ulanowski knew of the 24 the director was handling a complaint ulanowski filed against another attorney. in ulanowski be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law for a minimum of one year, mrpc. in in re williams, we held that an attorney committed unprofessional ulanowski does not challenge the referee's conclusion that he failed to inform finding that ulanowski violated rule 1.16(d) was not clearly erroneous. 2 interest when he withdrew from representation. failing to protect a client's interest upon 8.4(d), mrpc. specifically, ulanowski argues that his motion to remove the judge, even though the 23 kellen t. fish, minneapolis, minnesota, for respondent. however, the referee also concluded that ulanowski violated rule 4.4(a), mrpc, replenish the retainer to $3,000 immediately and to $5,000 four weeks before trial, citing 15 j.i. still owed him more than $10,000 in legal fees. the referee concluded ulanowski's (minn. 2010) (suspending attorney for 90 days for forgery, submitting a forged violated rules 3.3(a)(1), 4.1, and 8.4(c), mrpc, in this matter. her parents were owners of the property at issue, and they did not authorize ulanowski to matter was clearly erroneous. the conclusion that rule 4.4(a) was not violated in this information within the extended period. one notice required a response within 10 days. did not clearly err in concluding ulanowski violated rules 3.1, 3.2, 3.4(c), 4.4(a), and information is therefore not clearly erroneous. filed numerous untimely motions and a motion that had already been denied once. these of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client's informed consent, as


All Content © 2007-2012 The Judicial View, L.L.C. All Right Reserved.
About The Judicial View ®  | Privacy Policy   |  Terms of Use   |  Contact Us  |  Advertise