In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Loren M. Barta, an Attorney at Law of the State of Minnesota.

Annotate this Case
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Loren M. Barta, an Attorney at Law of the State of Minnesota. C5-89-149, Supreme Court Order, May 9, 2002.

 

STATE OF MINNESOTA

 
IN SUPREME COURT
 

C5-89-149

 

 

In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against

Loren M. Barta, an Attorney at Law of the

State of Minnesota.

 

 

O R D E R

 

 

            The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility and respondent Loren M. Barta have entered into a stipulation providing for the transfer of respondent to disability inactive status under Rule 28, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR).  The parties have represented that respondent suffers from a mental condition that prevents him from competently representing clients at this time, and is unable to cooperate or assist in the investigation of the pending ethics complaints. 

            Based upon all the files, record and proceedings herein,

            IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

(1)       Respondent Loren M. Barta is immediately transferred to disability inactive status.

(2)       During the disability inactive status respondent shall not engage in the practice of law, including rendering legal advice or discussing legal matters with clients.

(3)       All disciplinary investigations shall be held in abeyance until such time as respondent petitions for reinstatement to active status.


(4)       Respondent shall comply with the requirements of Rule 26, RLPR, for closing down his legal practice.

(5)       With respect to any reinstatement petition that respondent may file, the provisions of Rules 18 and 28(d), RLPR, shall apply.

            Dated:  May 2, 2002

                                                                                    BY THE COURT:

 

                                                                                    /s/ Paul H. Anderson

                                                                                    Associate 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.