“Most High School Seniors Can Do That”
The Minnesota Supreme Court has publicly reprimanded an attorney
The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility (Director) filed a petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent Daniel M. Gallatin committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline—namely, filing a settlement document with a court containing the opposing parties’ electronic signatures without having confirmed consent or authorization to do so. See Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, 3.3(a), 8.4(c), 8.4(d). We referred the matter to a referee, and after conducting an evidentiary hearing, the referee made findings of fact, conclusion of law, and a recommendation for discipline. The referee found that respondent committed the alleged misconduct and that there were two mitigating factors. The referee recommended a public reprimand and that respondent pay $900 in costs pursuant to Rule 24, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR).
Respondent and the Director entered into a stipulation for discipline. In it, they stipulate that the referee’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are conclusive and waive briefing and oral argument before us pursuant to Rule 14(g), RLPR. The parties jointly recommend that the appropriate discipline is a public reprimand and that respondent pay $900 in costs pursuant to Rule 24, RLPR.
MCKEIG, Justice (dissenting).
Because a suspension from the practice of law for a minimum of 30 days is the appropriate discipline for respondent Daniel M. Gallatin based on his derisive and belittling treatment of unrepresented parties and fraudulent conduct upon a court, I respectfully dissent.
A.
In 2019, Gallatin represented defendants in a conciliation court matter concerning an undisclosed water intrusion problem in a house that the defendants had recently sold. The plaintiffs in the matter were, at all relevant times, acting pro se. The conciliation court awarded the plaintiffs $10,265.19. Consequently, the defendants gave Gallatin authority to settle the matter for whatever amount he could obtain below the judgment amount and forwarded him the full amount of the judgment.
Judgments in conciliation court after a contested trial are removable to district court, and Gallatin threatened removal when negotiating with the plaintiffs. The tone of Gallatin’s negotiation emails was terse and, at times, condescending, but the parties eventually agreed to settle for $9,000 on the condition that the plaintiffs received a check for the full amount. Gallatin told the plaintiffs that he would have a check for them the following day. Following this agreement—and independent of the settlement discussion—Gallatin informed the plaintiffs that they would need to write up the settlement and dismissal papers themselves, which was the first time this was mentioned to the plaintiffs. The pro se plaintiffs are not lawyers and were entirely unfamiliar with settlement documents, but they attempted to draft the documents using a form they found on the internet. The plaintiffs had difficulties delivering the form to Gallatin as a PDF and eventually sent a photo of the drafted, but unsigned document using their cellphone. That evening, Gallatin sent an email to the plaintiff. the body of which read, in full:
FIGURE OUT HOW TO CREAT [sic] A PDF. MOST HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS CAN DO THAT. CREATE A PDF. E-MAIL A PDF. PICTURES FROM YOUR PHONE ARE A JOKE. THERE IS NOT A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND ORDER TO FILE. THERE’S A DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION. A SEPARATE DOCUMENT IS A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
After this exchange, the plaintiffs wished to not work further with Gallatin and sought to collect the conciliation award in other ways. Around 2 weeks later, Gallatin texted the plaintiffs, again chided them for not being able to write up the proper legal documents, and told them he would file the correct documents for $250 off the settlement. The plaintiffs did not agree to this deduction off the settlement amount. Five days later, having still not received a check from Gallatin, the plaintiffs filed with the court an affidavit of identification of judgment debtor listing themselves as judgment creditors and the defendants as judgment debtors. Over a week later, Gallatin sent an email to the plaintiffs stating, “It seems your incompetence and lack of integrity know no boundaries. A stipulation for dismissal with prejudice is being filed today with your signatures. I’ll do the paperwork and send you your settlement check.” The email did not contain a copy of the document Gallatin claimed he would file. The plaintiffs did not respond, nor did they give Gallatin permission to affix their signatures to any documents.
After nearly another week had passed, Gallatin filed with the Anoka County District Court a stipulation to vacate judgment and dismissal which contained the unauthorized typographical/electronic signatures of the plaintiffs. At this point, Gallatin still had not sent the plaintiffs a check. Based on Gallatin’s submission, the matter’s presiding judge signed the corresponding order for judgment of dismissal. The plaintiffs only found out about the dismissal of their claim after visiting the courthouse to determine the next steps in their collection efforts. The plaintiffs then petitioned the court to vacate the order vacating judgment, and only then did Gallatin send them a check for $9,000, which the plaintiffs did not cash.
The judge held a hearing, called the conduct “intrinsic fraud” and referred the matter to disciplinary authorities.
Sanction dissent
The plaintiffs whose electronic signatures Gallatin forged were simply trying to recover a judgment they had won against his clients in conciliation court. Gallatin could have settled the matter for his clients in a few hours, but instead chose to antagonize and belittle the pro se plaintiffs, letting the matter drag on for months before forging their signatures and costing his own clients unnecessary money and time. Mitigating factors such as Gallatin now being more polite in his emails and not billing his clients for the extra work—which he, himself created—simply do not tip the scales in favor of a lesser discipline. For his unprofessional and fraudulent conduct, Gallatin should be suspended from the practice of law for a minimum of 30 days.
Justices Thissen and Moore joined the dissent. (Mike Frisch)