ADMONITION AND STIPULATION PURSUANT TO RULE 8(d)(2), RULES ON LA WYERS PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

Transcription

1 .1- -, , -----r: '*'1 against DEBORAH ANN STYLES, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No ADMONITION AND STIPULATION PURSUANT TO RULE 8(d)(2), RULES ON LA WYERS PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY ADMONITION. This matter was initiated by a written complaint filed with the Director by the complainant. Thereafter, it was investigated by the Director's Office without referral to a district ethics committee. Based upon the entire file the Director hereby makes the following findings of fact: 1. The above-named attorney, hereinafter respondent, was admitted to practice law in Minnesota on October 26, Respondent is current in paying the registration fee required by the Minnesota Supreme Court. Respondent currently practices law in Minneapolis, Minnesota. 2. In February 2011, complainant was charged with a misdemeanor for violating a harassment restraining order arising out of an incident that.iu:.bm2m The yictim, P.P., was working at Rick's

2 4. Complainant's jury trial began on June 6, The Honorable Janet Poston was the presiding judge. Complainant was represented by attorney Tina Appleby. 5. Respondent asked the following question to complainant on crossexamination: "You've had several court appearances on this case prior to the start of this trial, haven't you?" Immediately after the question the court said, "Counsel, approach." Appleby objected to respondent's.., question, and the court sustained the objection;' The court held a discussion at the bench out of the hearing of the jury, and then announced to the jury that Appleby's objection was sustained. 6. Respondent's next question was, "You had a lawyer representing you.on this pending criminal mater since your very first appearance on this matter--." Appleby interrupted respondent and objected. The court instructed the jury to disregard the question. 7. Respondent's next question was, "You've had ample opportunity to disclose the circumstances that would explain why you were in the vicinity--." The court interrupted respondent and asked counsel to approach the bench. The jury was excused. 8. During the bench conference, Appleby moved for a mistrial, arguing that respondent's questions "clearly invade the attorney/client privilege, that clearly undermine and dilute the presumption of innocence... " 9. Respondent said in response: What I wanted to find out why this is the first time we're hearing of an explanation as to why [complainant] was in the area. That's all I want to know. All I want to know is why is today the first time we're hearing this explanation. There have been ample opportunities that we could have been told some theory as to why [P.P.] is 2

3 incorrect in even believing that [complainant] was in the area. So I want to know, why is today the first time he shared this explanation that he was in the vicinity but it wasn't anything other than a coincidence. That's all I want to get at. I have not asked him what he has told his attorney. I've asked nothing about the attorney-client privilege so it would be incorrect to characterize my motivation as attempting to do so. 10. The court granted a mistrial, stating that it was "complainant's opportunity to either testify or choose not to testify" and that respondent's questions were "inapproj:>riate" for the iurv- --._ Based upon these facts, the Director states the following conclusions: 1. Respondent's improper cross-examination of complainant violated Rules 3.4(e) and 8.4(d), Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC). 2. Respondent's unprofessional conduct warrants the issuance of an admonition. 3

4 WHEREFORE, this admonition is issued pursuant to Rule 8(d)(2), Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR). The attached memorandum is made a part hereof. /11t41t~ MARTIN A. COLE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF LAWYERS PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBIUTY 1500 Landmark Towers 345 St. Peter Street St. Paul, MN (651)

5 MEMORANDUM Respondent's conduct violated Rule 8.4( d), MRPC, which provides that "It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of ju$tice." Respondent's conduct prejudiced complainant, wasted the court's time, and unnecessarily resulted in a mistrial and required a new trial. Respondent also violated Rule 3.4(e), MRPC, which provides, in relevant part, that "A lawyer shall not in trial, allude to any matter that the lawyer does not reasonably believe is relevant or that will not be supported by admissible evidence." Respondent, who is an experienced criminal prosecutor, had no reasonable belief that evidence of complainant's refusal to explain his conduct on February 10, 2011, was relevant or would be supported by admissible evidence. Respondent's allusion to complainant's silence therefore violated Rule 3.4(e), MRPC

6 l Based on the foregoing discussion, the Director concludes that an admonition, which may be issued when "a lawyer's conduct was unprofessional but of an isolated and non-serious nature," 1 is the appropriate disciplinary outcome. 1 Rule 8(d)(2), Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility. 6

7 (f STIPULATION Respondent admits the allegations of the above admonition and waives her rights to notify the Director withi:n 14 days of a demand for presenting the charges to a Panel. Dated: u ~, ) '\) , /t;tfzj?e MARTIN A. COLE DIREC~'OR OF THE OFFICE OF LA WYERS PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY Attorney No Landmark Towers 345 St. Peter Street St. Pa':ll, MN (651) and bs:~ KEVIN T. SLATOR SENIOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR Attorney No Dated: / _. / t._ Dated:.,:z;;-_""1. t g' , DEBORAH ANN S RESPONDENT Attorney No Attorney No Nicollet Mall, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN (612)