Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Reciprocal DISCIPLINE OF Timothy P. HILL, a Member of the Bar of the State of North Dakota
[¶1] On August 28, 2023, the Disciplinary Board notified the Supreme Court under N.D.R. Lawyer Discipl. 4.4(D) that it was recommending the reciprocal discipline of Timothy P. Hill. The record reflects that the State of Minnesota filed an order suspending Hill for 12 months for failing to place flat fees into a trust account when Hill did not have a fee agreement compliant under Minnesota law.
[¶2] Disciplinary Counsel served Hill notice under N.D.R. Lawyer Discipl. 4.4(B) that a certified copy of the order of the Minnesota Supreme Court was received. The notice informed Hill that he had 30 days to file any claim that imposition of the identical discipline in North Dakota would be unwarranted and the reasons for the claim. Hill responded asserting that identical discipline should not be imposed in North Dakota, arguing the misconduct warrants substantially different discipline in this state. On August 9, 2023, the Disciplinary Board and Hill entered into a “Stipulation of Consent to Discipline.” The Disciplinary Board, Disciplinary Counsel, and Hill agreed that based on the differences in North Dakota's practice, rule language, and the factors considered for the purposes of imposing sanctions, the misconduct at issue would warrant substantially different discipline within this state.
[¶3] With regard to handling a flat fee agreement, the practice in North Dakota at the time of the underlying representations differed from Minnesota. Rule 1.5, N.D.R. Prof. Conduct was amended, effective July 1, 2023, to reflect practice of flat fee agreements and this Court's decision in Disciplinary Board v. Hoffman, 2013 ND 137, 834 N.W.2d 636 regarding this issue. The Court agrees that not all conduct considered misconduct in Minnesota would be misconduct in North Dakota. Additionally, the Court agrees that the misconduct at issue would warrant substantially different discipline in North Dakota.
[¶4] The Court considered the matter, and
[¶5] ORDERED that Timothy P. Hill is REPRIMANDED.
Per Curiam.
[¶6] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte Douglas A. Bahr
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 20230296
Decided: October 26, 2023
Court: Supreme Court of North Dakota.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)