Theft Conviction Draws Disbarment

An attorney’s theft by swindle conviction drew disbarment by the Minnesota Supreme Court

McNeilly was admitted to practice law in Minnesota on October 29, 2004. McNeilly most recently practiced law in Woodbury. McNeilly has been disciplined on two prior occasions; she was publicly reprimanded and placed on probation for three years in 2015 and admonished in 2016.

McNeilly was criminally convicted of theft by swindle in 2022. Following her conviction, the Director filed a petition for disciplinary action against McNeilly based on Rule 19(a), Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR), which provides that “[a] lawyer’s criminal conviction” is “conclusive evidence that the lawyer committed the conduct for which the lawyer was convicted.” The petition alleged that McNeilly’s criminal conviction was misconduct under Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(b) and (c).

Facts

In 2018, the Minnetonka Police Department executed a search warrant at a home where M.A.W. and J.J.S. resided. The police found illegal controlled substances during their search of the home. Following the search, and before the State filed criminal charges against them, M.A.W. and J.J.S. met with McNeilly. McNeilly agreed to represent M.A.W. for $20,000 and J.J.S. for $2,500. In May 2018, M.A.W. paid $22,500 to McNeilly’s business account—not her trust account.

Months later, on November 5, 2018, McNeilly both called and texted M.A.W., stating that she needed to speak with him urgently. McNeilly claimed that a Minnetonka detective and the prosecutor in M.A.W.’s case had asked to meet with her—in her words, a “bad sign.” Hours later, at M.A.W.’s home, McNeilly told M.A.W. and J.J.S. that she had been invited into the “back room” where esteemed attorneys had the privilege to meet with authorities to make deals for clients that would not involve any charges. According to McNeilly, this meant she had “made it” in her career. McNeilly also told M.A.W. that he was facing 15 to 20 years in federal prison for his drug case.

McNeilly claimed that M.A.W. could avoid federal charges if he paid $35,000 to a police union fund and worked as a confidential informant. McNeilly presented M.A.W. with a copy of a confidential informant form. M.A.W. declined the offer and expressed that he did not want to be an informant. McNeilly responded that if M.A.W. paid $50,000 to a police union fund, he could avoid charges without having to work as a confidential informant. McNeilly told M.A.W. that he should pay McNeilly and then she would deliver the money to the police union.

M.A.W. responded that he could pay McNeilly only $15,000 at that time but that he could pay more later. McNeilly stated that she would have to check with the detective. McNeilly went to M.A.W.’s garage, returned a few minutes later, and told M.A.W. that if he could get the $15,000 before 6:00 p.m., he could pay the rest later. McNeilly then drove M.A.W. to his bank. M.A.W. obtained a $15,000 cashier’s check, and McNeilly instructed him to write “legal fees” on the memo line. McNeilly took the check and deposited it into her business account.

Eventually, M.A.W. contacted and retained a new attorney. The new attorney advised M.A.W. to request a refund, receipts for his payments, and his file from McNeilly. The new attorney also contacted the authorities about the bribery scheme that M.A.W. alleged McNeilly had facilitated. M.A.W. emailed McNeilly three times asking for a refund. McNeilly refused his request each time.

The Minnetonka Police Department referred the investigation to the Burnsville Police Department (BPD) and placed the Minnetonka detective on administrative leave. BPD interviewed the Minnetonka detective, M.A.W., and J.J.S. BPD obtained a warrant for McNeilly’s bank records, which showed that she deposited the $15,000 cashier’s check from M.A.W. into her business account—not her trust account. McNeilly’s bank records showed that she used the $15,000 to make several payments—including a mortgage payment and payments to her credit card. McNeilly’s bank records did not reflect a payment made to a police union. BPD also reviewed McNeilly’s phone records. The phone records corroborated M.A.W.’s allegations that McNeilly called him on November 5, 2018. The phone records did not, however, show any calls between McNeilly and the Minnetonka detective.

Respondent was convicted at a jury trial.

Sanction

The referee found no mitigating factors, and McNeilly failed to allege any, as she failed to file a brief to this court. Although the referee found several aggravating factors, we need not consider them under these circumstances. In the absence of any mitigating factors, the commission of a felony and the misappropriation of client funds warrants disbarment.

The court had affirmed the conviction in May 2024. (Mike Frisch)