In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Timothy Christopher Scannell, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 326525.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MINNESOTA fl April 1, 2015 IN SUPREME COURT O HU:IEOF AJIIIB.LAJECcurn A14-1930 In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Timothy Christopher Scannell, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 326525. ORDER The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed a petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent Timothy Christopher Scannell has committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline, namely, committing two counts of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct and making derogatory statements on his blog about criminal defendants that he was currently prosecuting, in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 3.6(a), 8.4(b), and 8.4(d). Respondent waived his rights under Rule 14, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR), unconditionally admitted the allegations in the petition, and with the Director recommended that the appropriate discipline is an indefinite suspension with no right to petition for reinstatement for 3 years. Following receipt of the parties' stipulation for discipline, we issued an order directing the parties to file memoranda of law showing cause why respondent should not be subject to more severe discipline. Only the Director filed a memorandum· in response to the order to show cause. 1 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: 1. Respondent Timothy Christopher Scannell is indefmitely suspended from the practice of law, effective from the date of the filing of this order, with no right to petition for reinstatement for 3 years. 2. RLPR. Respondent may petition for reinstatement pursuant to Rule 18(a)-(d), Reinstatement is conditioned on successful completion of the professional responsibility portion of the state bar examination, satisfaction of continuing legal education requirements pursuant to Rule 18(e), RLPR, ·and proof of compliance with the terms of respondent's criminal probation. 3. Respondent shall comply with Rule 26, RLPR (requiring notice of suspension to clients, opposing counsel, and tribunals), and shall pay $900 in costs pursuant to Rule 24, RLPR. Dated: April 1, 20 15 BY THE COURT: Associate Justice GILDEA, C.J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. LILLEHAUG, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. 2
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.
