Minnesota's highest court disbars an attorney who represented an attorney-in-fact and then represented the attorney-in-fact's brother in a dispute with the attorney-in-fact. The attorney also misappropriated funds and made false statements. In re Disciplinary Action against Moe (Minn., No. A13-1611, Aug. 13, 2014).
O.M. was attorney-in-fact for his father, R.M., and he hired Paul Arthur Moe to represent him. Mr. Moe advised O.M. on a number of financial matters in January 2008. After a month, Mr. Moe did not do any more work for O.M. In December 2009, O.M.'s brother, L.M., hired Mr. Moe to remove O.M. as attorney-in-fact. Mr. Moe was appointed guardian and conservator for R.M. and investigated whether O.M. committed malfeasance.
After R.M. died, Mr. Moe submitted a final accounting. L.M. disputed the accounting, but Mr. Moe failed to comply with discovery. Mr. Moe also misappropriated $423.22 from R.M. Mr. Moe was charged with violating several rules of professional conduct, including conflict of interest, misappropriation, not complying with discovery, and making false statements.
The Minnesota Supreme Court holds that the cumulative weight of Mr. Moe's violations warrants disbarment. According to the court, Mr. Moe's misconduct began when he agreed to represent L.M. despite a conflict of interest, and continued for several more years, resulting in misappropriation of funds and other misconduct to conceal the misappropriation.
For the full text of this decision, go to: https://mn.gov/lawlib/archive/supct/2014/OPA131611-08132014.pdf
Did you know that the ElderLawAnswers database now contains summaries of more than 2,000 fully searchable elder law decisions dating back to 1993? To search the database, click here.
Subscribe to the Knowledge Bank.
