Minnesota To Massachusetts

Misconduct in Minnesota drew a reciprocal Massachusetts sanction per this summary on the web page of the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers

The respondent was also admitted to practice in the State of Minnesota. On January 17, 2018, the Supreme Court of Minnesota suspended the respondent from practice for sixty (60) days, effective immediately and subject to conditions upon reinstatement, for her conduct while representing two clients. The respondent: failed to adequately represent her clients, unnecessarily subpoenaed the billing records of predecessor attorneys, continuously interrupted the judge in the courtroom, sued the judge in his personal capacity for his actions as a judge, impugned the judge’s character in several letters to members of the Board on Judicial Standards, and defied the court’s scheduling orders. That conduct violated Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 3.1, 3.4(c), 3.5(f), 4.4(a), 8.2(a) and 8.4(d).

Sanction

On May 22, 2018, the Supreme Judicial Court (Kafker, J.) entered an order suspending the respondent for sixty days, retroactive to January 17, 2018, the effective date of her suspension in Minnesota. The respondent’s reinstatement in Massachusetts is conditioned on her reinstatement to the practice of law in the State of Minnesota.

The order of the Minnesota Supreme Court finding misconduct in a family law matter is linked here. 

Before the official start of the second day of trial, but after the judge had briefly taken the bench, MacDonald approached the court reporter and accused her of inaccurately recording the prior day’s testimony. MacDonald announced that, if the court reporter was unwilling to accurately record the events at trial, she would do so herself. MacDonald then began taking pictures of the courtroom. Court deputies approached MacDonald and reminded her that she knew not to take pictures in the courtroom. See Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 4.01 (“[N]o pictures ․ shall be taken in any courtroom ․ during a trial․” (emphasis added)); Order Regarding Cameras and Other Recording Equipment in Court Facilities (Dakota Cty. Dist. Ct. July 1, 2005) (providing, in a standing district-court order adopted “pursuant to Rule 4 of the General Rules of Practice,” that “[n]o pictures ․ shall be taken in any courtroom․” (emphasis added)).

Later that morning, during a recess, the deputies again approached MacDonald and advised her that she would receive a contempt citation for taking photographs in the courtroom. MacDonald initially cooperated with the deputies by accompanying them to a holding area to complete the necessary paperwork, but thereafter refused to give the deputies her full legal name, date of birth, and address. When asked for her name, for example, she replied, “[y]ou know my name.” ⁸ The deputies tried for approximately 15 minutes to obtain basic biographical information for the citation, but MacDonald refused to cooperate. Eventually, the deputies placed her in custody.⁹

The deputies asked MacDonald to remove her jewelry, glasses, and shoes, and to submit to a pat-down search. The deputies then placed MacDonald in a holding cell. When the time came for her to return to the courtroom, MacDonald refused to stand up or walk to the courtroom on her own. The deputies therefore placed her in a wheelchair and handcuffed her hands to a belt that they had secured around her waist to bring her to the courtroom. Video footage of the incident shows that the deputies attempted to return MacDonald’s shoes, but she refused to put them on.

While MacDonald was in custody, S.G. retrieved MacDonald’s files, including her trial materials, and left the courthouse. Once MacDonald returned to the courtroom, the judge reminded her that she had an obligation to her client and repeatedly inquired about how she wished to proceed, including offering her numerous chances to contact her client and retrieve her files. Each time, MacDonald refused to respond or otherwise seek an accommodation. Her involvement in the remainder of the trial was minimal. In fact, MacDonald agrees that she did not competently represent her client, but she testified at the disciplinary hearing that her inadequate representation was due solely to her illegal arrest. She maintains that there was “nothing [she] could say or do” to correct the situation and that she “didn’t do anything wrong.”

The referee found that MacDonald’s actions, both before and after her arrest, were an effort to produce a mistrial or support an appeal in S.G.’s case, or to gather evidence for the federal lawsuit against the judge. The referee concluded that MacDonald’s conduct violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, 3.4(c), 3.5(h), and 8.4(d). The referee also concluded that MacDonald’s separate failure to perfect an appeal in S.G.’s case, by neglecting to serve the notice of appeal on the guardian ad litem in a timely fashion, violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1.

Minnesota Lawyer reported on the sanction. (Mike Frisch)