In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Kristi D. McNeilly, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0341265. ...
Headline: Minnesota Supreme Court Disbars Attorney for Misconduct and Non-Cooperation
Citation:
Brief at a Glance
Minnesota attorney Kristi D. McNeilly disbarred for commingling client funds and failing to cooperate with disciplinary investigation.
- Always ensure your attorney provides you with an accounting of funds held in trust.
- Never allow your attorney to deposit your funds into their personal accounts.
- If you suspect misconduct, report your attorney to the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility.
Case Summary
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Kristi D. McNeilly, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0341265. ..., decided by Minnesota Supreme Court on April 2, 2025, resulted in a defendant win outcome. The Minnesota Supreme Court considered disciplinary action against attorney Kristi D. McNeilly for professional misconduct, specifically concerning her handling of client funds and her response to the disciplinary proceedings. The court found that McNeilly engaged in multiple violations of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, including commingling client funds with her personal funds and failing to cooperate with the Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility. Ultimately, the court ordered McNeilly's disbarment. The court held: The court held that an attorney's commingling of client funds with personal funds constitutes a serious violation of the duty to safeguard client property, warranting significant disciplinary action.. The court held that an attorney's failure to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation, including failing to respond to requests for information and failing to appear for a hearing, is a separate and serious ethical violation.. The court held that an attorney's pattern of misconduct, including prior disciplinary issues, weighs heavily in favor of a more severe sanction.. The court held that disbarment is the appropriate sanction when an attorney demonstrates a pattern of serious ethical violations, a lack of remorse, and a failure to engage with the disciplinary process.. The court held that the attorney's arguments regarding mitigating factors were insufficient to overcome the severity of her misconduct and the need to protect the public and the integrity of the legal profession.. This decision underscores the Minnesota Supreme Court's strict stance on attorney trust account violations and the critical importance of attorney cooperation with disciplinary investigations. It serves as a strong warning to all attorneys about the severe consequences, including disbarment, for mishandling client funds and obstructing disciplinary proceedings.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Case Analysis — Multiple Perspectives
Plain English (For Everyone)
A Minnesota lawyer, Kristi D. McNeilly, has lost her license to practice law. The Minnesota Supreme Court found she mishandled client money by mixing it with her own funds and failed to cooperate with the investigation into her actions. This led to her disbarment, meaning she can no longer be a lawyer in the state.
For Legal Practitioners
The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed disbarment for attorney Kristi D. McNeilly, finding clear and convincing evidence of commingling client funds with personal funds in violation of Rule 1.15 and failure to cooperate with the OLPR investigation under Rule 8.1. The court emphasized that these violations, particularly the commingling and lack of cooperation, warrant the severe sanction of disbarment.
For Law Students
This case illustrates the severe consequences of violating ethical rules regarding client funds and cooperation with disciplinary authorities. Attorney Kristi D. McNeilly's commingling of funds (Rule 1.15) and failure to cooperate (Rule 8.1) led to her disbarment by the Minnesota Supreme Court, highlighting the importance of strict adherence to professional conduct standards.
Newsroom Summary
Minnesota attorney Kristi D. McNeilly has been disbarred by the state's Supreme Court for mishandling client funds and obstructing a disciplinary investigation. The court found she mixed client money with her personal finances and failed to cooperate with investigators, leading to the permanent loss of her law license.
Key Holdings
The court established the following key holdings in this case:
- The court held that an attorney's commingling of client funds with personal funds constitutes a serious violation of the duty to safeguard client property, warranting significant disciplinary action.
- The court held that an attorney's failure to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation, including failing to respond to requests for information and failing to appear for a hearing, is a separate and serious ethical violation.
- The court held that an attorney's pattern of misconduct, including prior disciplinary issues, weighs heavily in favor of a more severe sanction.
- The court held that disbarment is the appropriate sanction when an attorney demonstrates a pattern of serious ethical violations, a lack of remorse, and a failure to engage with the disciplinary process.
- The court held that the attorney's arguments regarding mitigating factors were insufficient to overcome the severity of her misconduct and the need to protect the public and the integrity of the legal profession.
Key Takeaways
- Always ensure your attorney provides you with an accounting of funds held in trust.
- Never allow your attorney to deposit your funds into their personal accounts.
- If you suspect misconduct, report your attorney to the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility.
- Attorneys must respond promptly and truthfully to all inquiries from the OLPR.
- Failure to cooperate with disciplinary investigations is a serious offense that can lead to disbarment.
Deep Legal Analysis
Standard of Review
The Minnesota Supreme Court reviews attorney disciplinary matters de novo, meaning it examines the record and legal issues without deference to the findings of the referee. However, it gives 'great weight' to the referee's findings of fact if they are not clearly erroneous.
Procedural Posture
This case reached the Minnesota Supreme Court on a petition for disciplinary action against attorney Kristi D. McNeilly, filed by the Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility (OLPR). The matter proceeded to a hearing before a referee, who made findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation for discipline. The court then reviewed the referee's findings and recommendations.
Burden of Proof
The Director of the OLPR bears the burden of proving professional misconduct by clear and convincing evidence. The attorney, Kristi D. McNeilly, must then present evidence to mitigate the recommended discipline.
Legal Tests Applied
Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.15 (Safekeeping Property)
Elements: A lawyer shall hold property of clients or third persons that is reasonably necessary for the representation separate from the lawyer's own property. · Funds shall be kept in a separate trust account.
The court found that McNeilly violated Rule 1.15 by commingling client funds with her personal funds in her operating account and by failing to maintain a separate trust account for client funds. Specifically, she deposited settlement funds into her personal account and used them for personal expenses, failing to segregate them as required.
Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 8.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters)
Elements: A lawyer in connection with a knowing failure to respond or in connection with a disciplinary matter, shall not make a false statement of material fact. · Shall not fail to disclose a fact necessary to correct a false statement of material fact, unless protected by Rule 1.6. · Shall not fail to reasonably cooperate with the Director in the investigation, prosecution, and disposition of disciplinary matters and in compliance with the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board.
The court found that McNeilly violated Rule 8.1 by failing to cooperate with the Director's investigation. She did not respond to multiple communications from the OLPR regarding the allegations, including requests for information and documents, and failed to appear for a scheduled deposition. This failure to cooperate hindered the disciplinary process.
Statutory References
| Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.15 | Safekeeping Property — This rule is central to the finding of misconduct, as McNeilly commingled client funds with her personal funds and failed to maintain a separate trust account, directly violating the requirements for holding client property. |
| Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.1 | Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters — This rule was violated by McNeilly's failure to cooperate with the Director of the OLPR's investigation into her conduct, including failing to respond to communications and appear for a deposition. |
| Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(d) | Misconduct — This rule prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct that manifests an intent to deceive or that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. McNeilly's actions, including commingling funds and failing to cooperate, were found to be prejudicial to the administration of justice. |
Key Legal Definitions
Rule Statements
"We hold that respondent committed the misconduct alleged in the petition."
"We further hold that the appropriate discipline is disbarment."
"We therefore order that respondent Kristi D. McNeilly be disbarred from the practice of law in the state of Minnesota."
Remedies
Disbarment of Kristi D. McNeilly from the practice of law in Minnesota.McNeilly is prohibited from practicing law in Minnesota.McNeilly must comply with the requirements of Rule 26 of the Minnesota Rules of Lawyers Professional Responsibility, including providing notice to clients and opposing counsel.McNeilly must make restitution to any clients or third parties who suffered financial loss as a result of her misconduct.
Entities and Participants
Key Takeaways
- Always ensure your attorney provides you with an accounting of funds held in trust.
- Never allow your attorney to deposit your funds into their personal accounts.
- If you suspect misconduct, report your attorney to the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility.
- Attorneys must respond promptly and truthfully to all inquiries from the OLPR.
- Failure to cooperate with disciplinary investigations is a serious offense that can lead to disbarment.
Know Your Rights
Real-world scenarios derived from this court's ruling:
Scenario: You hired an attorney who handled your settlement. You later discover they deposited your settlement funds into their personal bank account and used some of the money for their own expenses before paying you.
Your Rights: You have the right to have your attorney hold your funds in a separate trust account, not mix them with their personal funds. You have the right to receive your settlement funds promptly and in full, minus agreed-upon fees.
What To Do: Contact the Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility in Minnesota to report the attorney's conduct. You may also have grounds to sue the attorney for malpractice and seek recovery of your funds.
Scenario: You are involved in a legal dispute and the opposing attorney is not responding to communications from the disciplinary board investigating a complaint against them.
Your Rights: The public has a right to expect attorneys to cooperate with disciplinary investigations. Attorneys have a duty to respond to such inquiries.
What To Do: If you have filed a complaint, continue to cooperate with the disciplinary board. If you are aware of an attorney's non-cooperation, you can inform the Director's office, as this is a separate ethical violation.
Is It Legal?
Common legal questions answered by this ruling:
Is it legal for my lawyer to deposit my settlement money into their personal checking account?
No. It is illegal and a violation of professional conduct rules for a lawyer to deposit client funds into their personal bank account. Client funds must be kept in a separate trust account.
This applies to lawyers licensed in Minnesota, as per the In re McNeilly opinion.
Can a lawyer refuse to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation?
No. Lawyers have a professional duty to reasonably cooperate with investigations by the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility. Failure to do so is an independent ethical violation.
This is a requirement for attorneys in Minnesota.
Practical Implications
For Clients of Kristi D. McNeilly
Clients who entrusted funds to McNeilly may have had those funds commingled with her personal finances, potentially jeopardizing their security. They may need to seek recovery of their funds and will need to find new counsel if their matters are ongoing.
For The Minnesota legal community
This ruling reinforces the strict ethical obligations attorneys have regarding client funds and cooperation with disciplinary bodies. It serves as a warning that violations will result in severe sanctions, including disbarment.
For The general public in Minnesota
The public can have greater confidence that the Minnesota Supreme Court is upholding standards of professional conduct, protecting consumers from attorney misconduct, and ensuring the integrity of the legal system.
Related Legal Concepts
The process by which a bar association or court investigates and sanctions attor... Fiduciary Duty
A legal obligation of one party to act in the best interest of another party, of... Professional Misconduct
Violations of the rules of professional conduct that govern lawyers, leading to ...
Frequently Asked Questions (36)
Comprehensive Q&A covering every aspect of this court opinion.
Basic Questions (8)
Q: What is In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Kristi D. McNeilly, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0341265. ... about?
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Kristi D. McNeilly, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0341265. ... is a case decided by Minnesota Supreme Court on April 2, 2025.
Q: What court decided In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Kristi D. McNeilly, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0341265. ...?
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Kristi D. McNeilly, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0341265. ... was decided by the Minnesota Supreme Court, which is part of the MN state court system. This is a state supreme court.
Q: When was In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Kristi D. McNeilly, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0341265. ... decided?
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Kristi D. McNeilly, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0341265. ... was decided on April 2, 2025.
Q: What is the citation for In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Kristi D. McNeilly, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0341265. ...?
The citation for In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Kristi D. McNeilly, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0341265. ... is . Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.
Q: What was Kristi D. McNeilly found to have done wrong?
Kristi D. McNeilly was found to have commingled client funds with her personal funds, violating rules about safekeeping client property. She also failed to cooperate with the investigation by the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility.
Q: What is commingling in the context of legal practice?
Commingling means mixing a client's money with a lawyer's own personal or business funds. Lawyers must keep client money separate in a trust account to protect it.
Q: What does it mean for an attorney to be disbarred?
Disbarment is the most severe disciplinary action, meaning the attorney has lost their license to practice law and can no longer represent clients or hold themselves out as an attorney.
Q: Why is keeping client funds separate so important?
It ensures that client funds are protected and not subject to the lawyer's personal debts or financial issues. It also maintains clear accounting and prevents misuse of client money.
Legal Analysis (13)
Q: Is In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Kristi D. McNeilly, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0341265. ... published?
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Kristi D. McNeilly, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0341265. ... is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.
Q: What was the ruling in In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Kristi D. McNeilly, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0341265. ...?
The court ruled in favor of the defendant in In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Kristi D. McNeilly, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0341265. .... Key holdings: The court held that an attorney's commingling of client funds with personal funds constitutes a serious violation of the duty to safeguard client property, warranting significant disciplinary action.; The court held that an attorney's failure to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation, including failing to respond to requests for information and failing to appear for a hearing, is a separate and serious ethical violation.; The court held that an attorney's pattern of misconduct, including prior disciplinary issues, weighs heavily in favor of a more severe sanction.; The court held that disbarment is the appropriate sanction when an attorney demonstrates a pattern of serious ethical violations, a lack of remorse, and a failure to engage with the disciplinary process.; The court held that the attorney's arguments regarding mitigating factors were insufficient to overcome the severity of her misconduct and the need to protect the public and the integrity of the legal profession..
Q: Why is In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Kristi D. McNeilly, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0341265. ... important?
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Kristi D. McNeilly, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0341265. ... has an impact score of 75/100, indicating significant legal impact. This decision underscores the Minnesota Supreme Court's strict stance on attorney trust account violations and the critical importance of attorney cooperation with disciplinary investigations. It serves as a strong warning to all attorneys about the severe consequences, including disbarment, for mishandling client funds and obstructing disciplinary proceedings.
Q: What precedent does In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Kristi D. McNeilly, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0341265. ... set?
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Kristi D. McNeilly, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0341265. ... established the following key holdings: (1) The court held that an attorney's commingling of client funds with personal funds constitutes a serious violation of the duty to safeguard client property, warranting significant disciplinary action. (2) The court held that an attorney's failure to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation, including failing to respond to requests for information and failing to appear for a hearing, is a separate and serious ethical violation. (3) The court held that an attorney's pattern of misconduct, including prior disciplinary issues, weighs heavily in favor of a more severe sanction. (4) The court held that disbarment is the appropriate sanction when an attorney demonstrates a pattern of serious ethical violations, a lack of remorse, and a failure to engage with the disciplinary process. (5) The court held that the attorney's arguments regarding mitigating factors were insufficient to overcome the severity of her misconduct and the need to protect the public and the integrity of the legal profession.
Q: What are the key holdings in In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Kristi D. McNeilly, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0341265. ...?
1. The court held that an attorney's commingling of client funds with personal funds constitutes a serious violation of the duty to safeguard client property, warranting significant disciplinary action. 2. The court held that an attorney's failure to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation, including failing to respond to requests for information and failing to appear for a hearing, is a separate and serious ethical violation. 3. The court held that an attorney's pattern of misconduct, including prior disciplinary issues, weighs heavily in favor of a more severe sanction. 4. The court held that disbarment is the appropriate sanction when an attorney demonstrates a pattern of serious ethical violations, a lack of remorse, and a failure to engage with the disciplinary process. 5. The court held that the attorney's arguments regarding mitigating factors were insufficient to overcome the severity of her misconduct and the need to protect the public and the integrity of the legal profession.
Q: What cases are related to In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Kristi D. McNeilly, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0341265. ...?
Precedent cases cited or related to In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Kristi D. McNeilly, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0341265. ...: In re Disciplinary Action against Widener, 843 N.W.2d 207 (Minn. 2014); In re Disciplinary Action against Peterson, 828 N.W.2d 727 (Minn. 2013); In re Disciplinary Action against Pearson, 825 N.W.2d 709 (Minn. 2013).
Q: What specific rules did Kristi D. McNeilly violate?
She violated Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct 1.15 (Safekeeping Property) by commingling funds and 8.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters) by failing to cooperate with the OLPR.
Q: What is the standard of review for attorney discipline cases in Minnesota?
The Minnesota Supreme Court reviews these cases de novo, meaning they look at the issues fresh, but they give great weight to the referee's factual findings if they are not clearly wrong.
Q: What is the burden of proof in attorney disciplinary cases?
The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility must prove misconduct by clear and convincing evidence. The attorney then has the burden to show mitigating factors for discipline.
Q: What does 'failure to cooperate' mean in a disciplinary context?
It means an attorney did not respond to communications from the disciplinary office, failed to provide requested documents, or did not attend required meetings or depositions related to an investigation.
Q: Can an attorney appeal a disbarment decision?
The Minnesota Supreme Court is the final arbiter in attorney discipline. While the court reviews the referee's findings, its decision on discipline, including disbarment, is the ultimate ruling.
Q: What happens if a lawyer commingles funds but claims it was an accident?
Intent is considered, but even an accidental commingling is a violation. The court will look at the circumstances, but the primary concern is the protection of client funds, and sanctions are still likely.
Q: Can a disbarred attorney ever get their license back?
In some cases, disbarment may be for a fixed period, after which the attorney can petition for reinstatement. However, reinstatement is rare and requires demonstrating rehabilitation and fitness to practice law.
Practical Implications (5)
Q: How does In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Kristi D. McNeilly, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0341265. ... affect me?
This decision underscores the Minnesota Supreme Court's strict stance on attorney trust account violations and the critical importance of attorney cooperation with disciplinary investigations. It serves as a strong warning to all attorneys about the severe consequences, including disbarment, for mishandling client funds and obstructing disciplinary proceedings. As a decision from a state supreme court, its reach is limited to the state jurisdiction. This case is moderate in legal complexity to understand.
Q: What should I do if I suspect my lawyer has commingled my funds?
You should immediately contact the Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility in Minnesota to file a complaint. You may also want to consult with another attorney about your options.
Q: How can I find out if an attorney has been disciplined?
The Minnesota Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board website typically lists disciplinary actions taken against attorneys, including disbarments.
Q: What if my lawyer is disbarred while my case is ongoing?
If your attorney is disbarred, you will need to find new legal representation promptly. The court or disciplinary board may order the disbarred attorney to notify clients and provide information for transitioning cases.
Q: Are there any exceptions to the rule about separate trust accounts?
No, the rules are very strict. Client funds must always be held separately from the lawyer's own funds in a designated trust account.
Historical Context (2)
Q: When was this decision made?
The opinion regarding Kristi D. McNeilly's disciplinary action was issued by the Minnesota Supreme Court. Specific dates of issuance are not provided in the summary, but such opinions are typically public record.
Q: Has attorney discipline always been handled by the Supreme Court?
The structure and specific rules for attorney discipline have evolved over time, but the highest state courts have historically held ultimate authority over attorney licensing and discipline.
Procedural Questions (5)
Q: What was the docket number in In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Kristi D. McNeilly, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0341265. ...?
The docket number for In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Kristi D. McNeilly, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0341265. ... is A220574. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.
Q: Can In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Kristi D. McNeilly, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0341265. ... be appealed?
Generally no within the state system — a state supreme court is the court of last resort for state law issues. However, if a federal constitutional question is involved, a party may petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review.
Q: What is the role of the referee in these cases?
A referee, often a judge or experienced attorney, presides over the initial hearing in disciplinary cases. They take testimony, review evidence, make findings of fact, and recommend conclusions of law and discipline to the Supreme Court.
Q: How does the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility (OLPR) start an investigation?
The OLPR typically begins an investigation after receiving a complaint from a client, another attorney, a judge, or a member of the public, or sometimes on its own initiative.
Q: What happens after the Supreme Court issues its disbarment order?
The attorney must cease practicing law immediately, notify clients and courts, and comply with other rules regarding the transition of their practice, such as making restitution if ordered.
Cited Precedents
This opinion references the following precedent cases:
- In re Disciplinary Action against Widener, 843 N.W.2d 207 (Minn. 2014)
- In re Disciplinary Action against Peterson, 828 N.W.2d 727 (Minn. 2013)
- In re Disciplinary Action against Pearson, 825 N.W.2d 709 (Minn. 2013)
Case Details
| Case Name | In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Kristi D. McNeilly, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0341265. ... |
| Citation | |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
| Date Filed | 2025-04-02 |
| Docket Number | A220574 |
| Precedential Status | Published |
| Outcome | Defendant Win |
| Impact Score | 75 / 100 |
| Significance | This decision underscores the Minnesota Supreme Court's strict stance on attorney trust account violations and the critical importance of attorney cooperation with disciplinary investigations. It serves as a strong warning to all attorneys about the severe consequences, including disbarment, for mishandling client funds and obstructing disciplinary proceedings. |
| Complexity | moderate |
| Legal Topics | Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.15 (Safeguarding Property), Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 8.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 8.4 (Misconduct), Attorney discipline and disbarment proceedings, Commingling of client funds, Duty of cooperation with disciplinary authorities |
| Jurisdiction | mn |
Related Legal Resources
About This Analysis
This comprehensive multi-pass AI-generated analysis of In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Kristi D. McNeilly, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0341265. ... was produced by CaseLawBrief to help legal professionals, researchers, students, and the general public understand this court opinion in plain English. This case received our HEAVY-tier enrichment with 5 AI analysis passes covering core analysis, deep legal structure, comprehensive FAQ, multi-audience summaries, and cross-case practical intelligence.
CaseLawBrief aggregates court opinions from CourtListener, a project of the Free Law Project, and enriches them with AI-powered analysis. Our goal is to make the law more accessible and understandable to everyone, regardless of their legal background.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Related Cases
Other opinions on Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.15 (Safeguarding Property) or from the Minnesota Supreme Court:
-
Andrew Vernard Glover v. State of Minnesota
Minnesota Supreme Court · 2026-04-01
-
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Herbert A. Igbanugo, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0191139. ...
Minnesota Supreme Court · 2026-04-01
-
In re Petition for Reinstatement of Registration No. 0191139
Minnesota Supreme Court · 2026-04-01
-
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Michael Tillman
Minnesota Supreme Court · 2026-04-01
-
State of Minnesota v. Melissa Madelyne Zielinski
Minnesota Court of Appeals Affirms DWI and Test Refusal Convictions Against ZielinskiMinnesota Supreme Court · 2026-03-25
-
State of Minnesota v. Scot Perry Christian
Minnesota Supreme Court Affirms Scot Perry Christian's Murder Convictions, Upholding Exclusion of Third-Party Perpetrator EvidenceMinnesota Supreme Court · 2026-03-25
-
Petition of Minnesota Housing Finance New Certificate of Title After Mortgage Foreclosure Sale Certificate No. 112938 – ...
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency's Foreclosure Voided Due to Failure to Provide Statutory Notice to HomeownerMinnesota Supreme Court · 2026-03-18
-
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Richard Smeby
Minnesota Court of Appeals Affirms Drug Convictions, Upholding Search Warrant Based on Probable CauseMinnesota Supreme Court · 2026-03-18