In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Michael B. Smith, an Attorney at Law of the State of Minnesota.

Annotate this Case
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Michael B. Smith, an Attorney at Law of the State of Minnesota. C3-97-2088, Supreme Court Order, January 28, 1998.

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN SUPREME COURT

C3-97-2088

In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action against
Michael B. Smith, an Attorney at Law of the
State of Minnesota.

O R D E R

WHEREAS, the Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility has filed a petition for transfer to disability inactive status for, or discipline of, respondent Michael B. Smith upon allegations that he misappropriated money from his client trust account, failed to maintain appropriate trust account books and records, failed to timely file and pay individual and employer tax returns and engaged in a pattern of neglect and misrepresentation to clients, and that he suffers from a depressive condition that prevents him from competently representing clients; and

WHEREAS, respondent has waived his rights pursuant to Rules 14 and 28, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR), admits the factual statements in the petition, and has entered into a stipulation with the Director in which they jointly recommend his transfer to disability inactive status pursuant to Rule 28, RLPR; that the reinstatement hearing provided for in Rules 18 and 28(d), RLPR, not be waived; and that as part of any reinstatement proceeding, the allegations of misconduct admitted to by respondent shall be considered; and

WHEREAS, this court has independently reviewed the record and agrees with the jointly recommended disposition of this matter,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent Michael B. Smith is transferred to disability inactive status and any reinstatement is subject to the conditions jointly agreed to as set out above.

Dated: January 20, 1998

BY THE COURT:

A.M. (Sandy) Keith
Chief Justice

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.