Federal Practice Lapses Can Be Sanctioned By State

The North Dakota Supreme Court has rejected the claim that it lacks jurisdiction to sanction misconduct committed in a federal immigration matter in North Dakota:

This Court exercised jurisdiction over disciplinary matters arising from federal immigration proceedings involving North Dakota lawyers in the past. Disciplinary Board v. Karlsen, 2008 ND 235, 778 N.W.2d 522; Disciplinary Board v. Vela, 2005 ND 119, 699 N.W.2d 839; Disciplinary Board v. Vela, 2008 ND 42, 746 N.W.2d 1. Howe is a licensed North Dakota attorney. Under clear language in Rule 8.5(a), N.D.R. Prof. Conduct, and our judicial decisions, he is subject to discipline in this jurisdiction despite that the matter arose from a federal immigration proceeding and that disciplinary action was not taken by the federal immigration court. This Court has jurisdiction over this disciplinary case.

The attorney had a long history of prior discipline.

Here, he was suspended for six months and a day. He is required to demonstrate he is fit to practice before reinstatement. (Mike Frisch)