The State Bar Association of North Dakota Winter 2014 Gavel Magazine | Page 34

ETHICS &
DISCIPLINE

NOTICE OF DISBARMENT OF
ATTORNEY
Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court
of the State of North Dakota, Petitioner v.
James G. Wolff,
Respondent
No. 20130267-20130273
The Court considered a Consolidated
Stipulation, Consent to Discipline, and
recommendations by the Hearing Panel,
recommending James G. Wolff be disbarred
effective October 1, 2010, the effective date
of his previous disbarment. The Hearing
Panel concluded Wolff
violated N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.3, 1.4,
1.15(a), 1.15(c), 8.4(B), and 8.4(c); N.D.R.
Lawyer Discipl.
1.2(A)(2) and 1.2(A)(3); N.D.C.C. § 12.123-02(2); N.D.C.C. § 27-14-02(1); and
N.D.C.C. § 27-1402(7) in seven consolidated matters. Wolff
admitted the following. In the first case, he
did not complete work for which he had
been retained; did not diligently act on a
client’s behalf; and failed to account for
client retainers, and, if appropriate, refund
unearned portions. In the second and third
cases, Wolff did not keep money paid by
clients separate until earned, and the client
protection fund paid $25,000 as a result. In
the fourth case, Wolff did not reasonably
communicate with his client or diligently
represent her in a criminal matter. In the
fifth case, Wolff failed to complete the
work for which he was retained and, upon
the conclusion of representation, failed
to account for the client’s retainer and, if
appropriate, refund unearned portions. In
the sixth case, Wolff did not keep a client’s
settlement funds separate, and the client
protection fund paid $5,000 as a result. In
the seventh case, Wolff was convicted of
serious crimes that reflect adversely on the
lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness
as a lawyer.
The Hearing Panel concluded Wolff violated N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.3, 1.4, 1.15(a),
1.15(c), 8.4(B), and 8.4(c); N.D.R. Lawyer
Discipl. 1.2(A)(2) and 1.2(A)(3); N.D.C.C.
§ 12.1-23-02(2); N.D.C.C. § 27-14-02(1);

32

and N.D.C.C. § 27-14-02(7). The Supreme
Court adopted the hearing panel’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
The Court ordered Wolff disbarred from
the practice of law in North Dakota effective October 1, 2010; ordered Wolff pay
the costs and expenses of the disciplinary
proceedings in the amount of $300; ordered
Wolff to provide an accounting of fees and
expenses to clients Lance Lenton and Rory
Clark and refund any amounts collected for
fees that have not been earned or expenses
that have not been incurred; and ordered
Wolff to make restitution to the North Dakota Client Protection Fund in the amount
of $30,000.
NOTICE OF DISCIPLINE OF
ATTORNEY
In the Matter of the Reciprocal Discipline of
John O. Murrin, III, a Member of the Bar of
the State of North Dakota
No. 20130355
On September 19, 2012, the Supreme
Court of Minnesota filed an Order suspending John O. Murrin, III, for six months
for repeatedly filing voluminous and
frivolous pleadings in three separate actions
in three different courts and for violation of
court orders. At the conclusion of Murrin’s
Minnesota suspension, he was required to
petition for reinstatement to the practice of
law in Minnesota. Murrin was notified that
a certified copy of an order of discipline
entered by the Supreme Court of Minnesota was received and that Murrin had 30
days to file any claim that imposition of the
identical discipline in North Dakota would
be unwarranted and the reasons for the
claim. In his response, Murrin argued that
his conduct warrants substantially different
discipline in North Dakota under N.D.R.
Lawyer Discipl. Conduct 4.4(D)(4), and
that identical discipline is improper because
the Minnesota disciplinary proceedings deprived him of due process. N.D.R. Lawyer
Discipl. Conduct 4.4(D)(1). Murrin also
argued that his conduct warrants substantially different discipline in North Dakota
because his violation of court orders was
negligent, not intentional.

The North Dakota Supreme Court suspended Murrin for six months, effective
February 1, 2014. The North Dakota Supreme Court ordered Murrin’s suspension
to be considered a short suspension under
N.D.R. Lawyer Discipl. 4.5, and Murrin is
not required to petition for reinstatement
to the practice of law in North Dakota
after the suspension. Murrin must comply
with N.D.R. Lawyer Discipl. 6.3 regarding notice, and he must pay the costs and
expenses of the disciplinary proceedings in
the amount of $3,090.41.
NOTICE OF DISCIPLINE OF
ATTORNEY
Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court
of the State of North Dakota, Petitioner v.
Rudolph A. Tollefson, Respondent
No. 20130343
The Supreme Court considered the
revised stipulation, consent to discipline
and recommendations by a hearing panel,
recommending Rudolph A. Tollefson
be disbarred from the practice of law in
North Dakota in three consolidated matters. Tollefson has been disciplined twice
before by this Court, and he is not currently
licensed to practice law. His license was
suspended three times in 2011 for failure
to pay child support. In the first matter,
Tollefson falsely informed his client he
filed documents in a parental responsibility dispute; failed to account for or refund
unearned funds, even though he promised
a full refund; and failed to inform the client
of the periods his license was suspended. In
the second matter, Tollefson failed to complete the work for which he was retained;
failed to inform the client of the periods
his license was suspended; and failed to
account for or refund unearned funds, even
though he promised a full refund. In the
first two matters, Tollefson held himself out
as the client’s lawyer, took actions as the
client’s lawyer, or both during periods in
which