Backdating syllabus


15-Oct-2017 19:37

[5] Therefore, we uphold the referee's finding that Moeller directed the forgery.

The referee's findings as to the second forgery are supported by circumstantial evidence.

The referee found that the Director's office had constructive knowledge of the contents of the tape at the time the complaint was dismissed.

Therefore, the referee concluded that, pursuant to Rule 19(b), RLPR, the incident and evidence concerning it could not be considered to prove a separate violation of professional misconduct, but could be considered as part of a pattern of related conduct.

2) In a social security disability matter, Moeller submitted a backdated retainer agreement without explanation to an administrative law judge and misled the Director regarding the date on the retainer agreement. Priesz, Jr., in a letter dated October 13, 1993, regarding his negotiations to settle a matter on which Priesz had placed an attorney's lien in the amount of

[5] Therefore, we uphold the referee's finding that Moeller directed the forgery.The referee's findings as to the second forgery are supported by circumstantial evidence.The referee found that the Director's office had constructive knowledge of the contents of the tape at the time the complaint was dismissed.Therefore, the referee concluded that, pursuant to Rule 19(b), RLPR, the incident and evidence concerning it could not be considered to prove a separate violation of professional misconduct, but could be considered as part of a pattern of related conduct.

||

[5] Therefore, we uphold the referee's finding that Moeller directed the forgery.

The referee's findings as to the second forgery are supported by circumstantial evidence.

The referee found that the Director's office had constructive knowledge of the contents of the tape at the time the complaint was dismissed.

Therefore, the referee concluded that, pursuant to Rule 19(b), RLPR, the incident and evidence concerning it could not be considered to prove a separate violation of professional misconduct, but could be considered as part of a pattern of related conduct.

2) In a social security disability matter, Moeller submitted a backdated retainer agreement without explanation to an administrative law judge and misled the Director regarding the date on the retainer agreement. Priesz, Jr., in a letter dated October 13, 1993, regarding his negotiations to settle a matter on which Priesz had placed an attorney's lien in the amount of $1,903.71.

3) In the course of representing a Minneapolis police lieutenant, Moeller altered a settlement stipulation previously signed by opposing counsel to increase the amount of his contingent fee and forwarded it to a third party for filing with D. 5) Moeller either gave intentionally false testimony regarding the extent of his representation of a client at a March 1, 1996 hearing or filed an intentionally false attorney's lien.

Moeller testified that his partner, retired Judge Donald Lais, handled the entire file when in fact, an attorney's lien reflected that he performed 73.5 hours of service and that Lais had only performed 7.05 hours. in support of requests for contingent fees which inaccurately listed the date on which work was performed, the name of the attorney who performed the work, or included bills for legal work which could not be substantiated by a review of the files.

6) Moeller submitted numerous billing statements to D. 7) On or about September 26, 1994, Moeller directed his secretary to forge a client's signature on a retainer agreement providing for a $13,000 maximum contingent fee. On appeal to this court, Moeller does not contest the bulk of the referee's findings, and he concedes that some discipline is appropriate for his ethical violations.

,903.71.

3) In the course of representing a Minneapolis police lieutenant, Moeller altered a settlement stipulation previously signed by opposing counsel to increase the amount of his contingent fee and forwarded it to a third party for filing with D. 5) Moeller either gave intentionally false testimony regarding the extent of his representation of a client at a March 1, 1996 hearing or filed an intentionally false attorney's lien.

Moeller testified that his partner, retired Judge Donald Lais, handled the entire file when in fact, an attorney's lien reflected that he performed 73.5 hours of service and that Lais had only performed 7.05 hours. in support of requests for contingent fees which inaccurately listed the date on which work was performed, the name of the attorney who performed the work, or included bills for legal work which could not be substantiated by a review of the files.

6) Moeller submitted numerous billing statements to D. 7) On or about September 26, 1994, Moeller directed his secretary to forge a client's signature on a retainer agreement providing for a ,000 maximum contingent fee. On appeal to this court, Moeller does not contest the bulk of the referee's findings, and he concedes that some discipline is appropriate for his ethical violations.

backdating syllabus-66

Online chatting to horny girls

[3] Allegations of professional misconduct must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.

[4] We first consider Moeller's claim that the referee's finding that he was responsible for two separate forgeries of his client's signature was not supported by clear and convincing evidence.