In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Patrick J. Nolan, III, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 121307.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

fiL-STATE OF MINNESOTA February 9, 2015 IN SUPREME COURT Dm~EOF APPB.lAlEC s A15-0137 In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Patrick J. Nolan, III, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 121307. ORDER The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed a petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent Patrick J. Nolan, III, committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline, namely, being convicted of a felony for making a false statement to United States Postal Inspection Service agents during the course of a criminal investigation, in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(b) and 8.4(c). Respondent watves his rights under Rule 14, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR), unconditionally admits the allegations in the petition, and with the Director recommends that the appropriate discipline is an indefinite suspension with no right to petition for reinstatement for 3 years. The court 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 Patrick J. Nolan, III, is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law, effective as of 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: February 9, 2015 BY THE COURT: 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.