In this matter of no discipline warranted signed by Patrick R. Burns and investigated by Shawn Bartsh we have another matter not consistent with the Minnesota Rules of Professional Responsibility.
Complainant provided an invoice dated 11-11-99 showing when the two year statute of limitations began to run. Attorney Clark Thurn’s letter to client warning of SOL was dated 01-04-02. The insurance policy state the SOL was two years.
Complaint also provided a memorandum written by attorney Clark Thurn when he was retained approx two months before the statute of limitations would have run based on the 11-11-99 date. This memo stated in part that client came to see him to bring a lawsuit. Complainant further provided detailed time logs written by attorney Clark Thurn that showed no evidence that attorney Clark Thurn ever consulted with or sent a letter to client warning of the two year SOL before they would have expired on 11-11-2001.
The only letter that attorney Clark Thurn wrote warning of the SOL was after the two year mark had passed.
No violation of Rule 1.4 found.
UPDATE: July 2, 2009 On Appeal attorney Robert B. Bauer finds for attorney Clark Thurn. Mr. Bauer states there is not any clear and convincing evidence that the statute of limitations was not communicated in a timely manner. The only evidence of communication of the SOL was a letter written by the attorney Clark Thurn to the client warning of the SOL. Mr. Bauer failed to realize that the letter was written after the SOL had already passed. Mr. Bauer also reasons that client files ethics complaints against all attorneys who do not agree with him. Mr. Bauer provides no facts to support this allegation nor does Mr. Bauer know how many attorneys this client has retained over the last the 30 years, nor does he know how many attorneys he has filed ethics complaints on.
Minnesota Lawyers Ethics Board 