The board approves of attorneys willfully suggesting the violation of State law when it is beneficial to the attorney and further approves the attorney quoting the same State law when the attorney wishes to avoid a certain consequence that is not favorable to his/her case.
It also appears that to be a valid ethical complaint in a pending
case before the court, the judge must be asked if there was an
ethics violation. So therefore no ethics violation can be found
unless the judge rules on the matter.
Attorney Richard J. Thomas demanded Plaintiff who was an LLC and unrepresented by an attorney to produce specific documents and information with regard to discovery requests.
Attorney Richard J. Thomas should have known under the rules and laws that an individual or corporate shareholder cannot legally represent a corporation in district court. Instead Mr. Thomas demanded the individual represent the LLC and produce the information.
Later after receiving the requested discovery, attorney, Richard J. Thomas moves for dismissal of the case based partly on a shareholder/member representing the LLC without an attorney.
Attorney Richard J. Thomas wants it one way when it suits him but another way when the law favors him.
The board found no ethical violation for this conduct.
The board further found that an ethical complaint is not valid against an attorney unless the judge in a proceeding found some ethical violation, even though the issue was not raised for the judge to consider.
Contact me here:
Minnesota Lawyers Ethics Board 