In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Eric Leighton Crandall, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 189492.

Annotate this Case
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Eric Leighton Crandall, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 189492. A07-2214, Supreme Court Order, December 13, 2007.

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN SUPREME COURT

A07-2214

 

 

In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against

Eric Leighton Crandall, a Minnesota Attorney,

Registration No. 189492.

 

 

O R D E R

 

            The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility has filed a petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent Eric Leighton Crandall committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline, namely, neglect of a client matter resulting in dismissal of the clients' claims, failure to communicate with the clients, and failure to cooperate with the Director's investigation of the clients' complaint, in violation of Rules 1.3, 1.4, 8.1(b) and 8.4(c), Minn. R. Prof. Conduct and Rule 25, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR).  Respondent is currently suspended from the practice of law in Minnesota.  In re Crandall, 699 N.W.2d 769, 770 (Minn. 2005).

            Respondent has entered into a stipulation with the Director under which he admits the allegations of the petition and waives his procedural rights under Rule 14, RLPR.  The parties jointly recommend that the appropriate discipline is an extension of respondent's suspension by 30 days.

            The court has independently reviewed the file and approves the recommended disposition. 

            Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein,

            IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent Eric Leighton Crandall's current suspension from the practice of law in Minnesota is extended by 30 days.  Respondent may not petition for reinstatement to the practice of law for a minimum of 30 days from the date of filing of this order.  All other conditions of reinstatement imposed by the court's previous order remain in effect.

            Dated:   December 10, 2007

                                                                                    BY THE COURT:

 

                                                                                            /s/                                                   

                                                                                    Helen M. Meyer

                                                                                    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.