The State Bar Association of North Dakota Winter 2014 Gavel Magazine | Page 35

the papers were not in the proper form
and did not include a notice to creditors.
Tollefson failed to inform the client of the
periods in which is license was suspended;
failed to fully refund the client’s funds,
although he promised to do so; and held
himself out as the client’s lawyer, took actions as the client’s lawyer, or both during
periods in which his license was suspended.
Tollefson falsely informed the second client
he filed an answer in her divorce action,
and she was forced to retain a new lawyer
to defend a motion for default. He failed
to account for the funds the client paid.
Tollefson failed to file a bankruptcy petition
for the third client, failed to inform the client of the periods in which his license was
suspended, and failed to refund unearned
fees. Tollefson failed to complete work for
the fourth client in a parental responsibility matter; failed to communicate with the
client; failed to inform the client of the periods in which is license was suspended; and
failed to refund the unearned fees. Tollefson falsely informed the fifth client he filed
papers in a parental responsibility matter
and failed to account for the amounts the

The Gavel Winter 2014

client paid.
Tollefson admitted his conduct violated
N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.3, 1.4, 1.16(e),
8.4(c), and 5.5(a), and N.D.R. Lawyer Discip. 1.2(A)(3). Tollefson admitted his prior
disciplinary offenses are an aggravating
factor under N.D. Stds. Imposing Lawyer
Sanctions 9.22(a), and his personal or
emotional problems, and his participation
in the Lawyer Assistance Program, are mitigating factors under N.D. Stds. Imposing
Lawyer Sanctions 9.32(c). Tollefson agreed
to the sanctions proposed by the hearing
panel.
The Supreme Court accepted the hearing
panel’s revised stipulation, consent to discipline, and recommendations by the hearing
panel. The Court disbarred Tollefson; ordered him to provide an accounting of fees
and expenses to two clients and to refund
any amounts collected for fees that have not
been earned or expenses that have not been
incurred; ordered him to refund unearned
fees to five clients; and ordered him to pay
the costs and expenses of the disciplinary
proceedings in the amount of $250.

NOTICE OF ORDER DENYING
ATTORNEY REINSTATEMENT
Monty J. Stensland, Petitioner
v. Disciplinary Board of the Supreme
Court of the State of North Dakota, Respondent
No. 20130008
A hearing panel of the Disciplinary Board
recommended denying Monty Stensland’s
petition for reinstatement to the practice
of law under N.D.R. Lawyer Discipl. 4.5(F)
and assessing him costs of the reinstatement proceedings in the amount of
$5,392.63.
The Supreme Court found the evidence
clearly and convincingly established
Stensland failed to demonstrate his qualifications for reinstatement to the pactice of
law under N.D.R. Lawyer Discipl. 4.5(F),
because he engaged or attempted to engage
in the practice of law during his suspension
and he made a false assertion to the Supreme Court. The Court denied Stensland’s
petition for reinstatement to the practice
of law and ordered him to pay costs of the
reinstatement proceedings in the amount of
$5,392.63.

33