In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Anthony D. Crosby, an Attorney at Law of the State of Minnesota.

In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Anthony D. Crosby, an Attorney at Law of the State of Minnesota. C6-97-2246, Supreme Court Order, April 16, 1998.

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN SUPREME COURT

C6-97-2246

 

In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action against
Anthony D. Crosby, 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 disciplinary action alleging that respondent Anthony D. Crosby has committed professional conduct warranting public discipline, namely engaging in and pleading guilty to theft by swindle; and

WHEREAS, respondent has waived his rights pursuant to Rule 14, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR); has withdrawn his answer to the petition and unconditionally admits the allegations of the petition; and has entered into a stipulation with the Director in which they jointly recommend a 3-year suspension from the practice of law, with the reinstatement hearing pursuant to Rule 18, RLPR, not waived; and any reinstatement further conditioned upon payment of costs of $900 pursuant to Rule 24(d), RLPR; compliance with Rule 26, RLPR; successful completion of the professional responsibility examination pursuant to Rule 18(e), RLPR; and satisfaction of the continuing legal education requirements pursuant to Rule 18(e), RLPR; and

WHEREAS, this court has independently reviewed the record and has determined that the appropriate discipline under the circumstances is a suspension from practice for 5 years with reinstatement conditioned upon the terms agreed to by the parties,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent Anthony D. Crosby is suspended from the practice of law for a period of 5 years, effective 10 days from the date of this order, with any reinstatement subject to the stipulated conditions set out above.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that either party may, within 10 days of this order, file a written request for withdrawal of the stipulation as modified and a second referral to a referee for further proceedings; upon such application, this order will be deemed withdrawn.

Dated: 4/7/98

BY THE COURT:

Kathleen A. Blatz
Chief Justice

 

D I S S E N T

PAGE, Justice (dissenting).

I respectfully dissent. I would have rejected the stipulation because I believe respondent's misconduct warrants disbarment.

 

GARDEBRING, Justice (dissenting).

I join in the dissent of Justice Page.