The Minnesota Supreme Court has ordered a 30-day suspension and one year probation for misconduct in two matters

The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed a petition for disciplinary action against respondent Jason Alexander Nielson, alleging various acts of professional misconduct. We appointed a referee. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the referee found that in two client matters, Nielson failed to properly explain the legal issues so that the client could make informed decisions, and that in one matter, he failed to inform the client about the status of her case. The referee further found that in one of these matters, Nielson provided false and misleading information to the client, and in the other matter—working through a paralegal—he also provided false and misleading information to the client. The referee found three aggravating factors and no mitigating factors. Based on these findings and conclusions of professional misconduct, the referee recommended that Nielson be publicly reprimanded, precluded from taking new clients for 45 days, and placed on probation for 1 year.

Both matters involving immigration clients

The referee made four main findings: 1) in both matters, the clients thought their immigration status could be adjusted because their children were qualified relatives, and Nielson did not adequately explain that existing immigration law did not permit the designation of children as qualified relatives; 2) the firm paralegal made a false statement to M.D., and Nielson failed to correct it; 3) Nielson made a false statement to O.C. and failed to correct it; and 4) Nielson failed to communicate to M.D. the status of her case in relation to the I-130 petition being monitored with the National Visa Center. Nielson makes various challenges to these findings. Taking these findings in turn, we conclude that the referee’s findings are not clearly erroneous.

Sanction

We believe that a suspension is appropriate based on the facts and circumstances of this case. Nielson’s misconduct caused substantial harm to his clients. See In re Ganley, 549 N.W.2d 368, 370 (Minn. 1996) (“Suspension is warranted when the lawyer knowingly engages in conduct that violates a duty to the profession and causes injury to the client, the public, or the legal system.”). In addition, significant aggravating factors are present and there are no mitigating factors. We therefore conclude that the appropriate discipline is a suspension for 30 days.

(Mike Frisch)