Disciplinary Board v. McKechnie

20020194

In the Matter of the Application for
Disciplinary Action Against William E.
McKechnie, a Member of the Bar of the
State of North Dakota
------------------------------------
Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court
of the State of North Dakota, Petitioner
v.
William E. McKechnie, Respondent

Nature of Action:

Disciplinary Proceedings (Civil)

Counsel:

Petitioner:		Loralyn Kay Hegland
Respondent:		Zuger Kirmis & Smith

Term:

10/2002 Argument: 10/29/2002 09:30am

ND cite:

2003 ND 22

NW cite:

656 N.W.2d 661

Listen to recording of oral argument
using RealPlayer Basic,^© a free download.

Issues:

Petitioner's Statement of the Issues:
I. Whether there is clear and convincing evidence that McKechnie violated Rules 1.1 and 1.4(b), NDRPC.
II. Whether the hearing panel's recommended sanction is in accordance with the North Dakota Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions.
III. Whether the hearing panel erred in striking McKechnie's disciplinary history from the petition for discipline.
IV. Whether the hearing panel erred in excluding Follman from hearing the testimony of other witnesses.
V. Whether the hearing panel erred in refusing to admit into evidence a document from the disciplinary board's records.
VI. Whether the hearing panel erred in permitting testimony from an expert witness.

Respondent's Statement of the Issues:
1. The evidence does not support a finding by clear and convincing standard that an attorney-client relationship existed between Attorney McKechnie [hereinafter "McKechnie"] and Dennis Follman [hereinafter "Follman"].
2. The evidence submitted does not support a conclusion by clear and convincing standard that McKechnie violated Rule 1.1, N.D.R. Prof. Conduct, Competence, or Rule 1.4(b), N.D.R. Prof. Conduct, Communication.
3. The failure of Disciplinary Counsel to submit evidence of standard of care makes any finding by clear and convincing evidence that McKechnie violated the N.D.R. Prof. Conduct impossible in this case.
4. The ethical venue was used in this instance to attempt litigation of a tort case. The Hearing Panel erred in not granting the motion to dismiss at the conclusion of the evidence offered by Disciplinary Counsel.
5. The testimony of Follman deserved no credibility and without such testimony, there is no clear and convincing evidence upon which to rest a finding that McKechnie violated either rule or statute.
6. Inclusion in the Petition of prior confidential admonitions and continuous reference through the disciplinary process denied McKechnie of both procedural and substantive due process of law.
7. The recommended sanction is not supported by evidence.
8. The granting of attorneys fees and costs was in error and inappropriate based upon the evidence.
9. The objections by Disciplinary Counsel to the Report of Hearing Panel are without merit.

Add Docket 20020194 RSS

Docket entries:

1	07/26/2002	REPORT OF HEARING PANEL (copy)
2	07/26/2002	REPORT OF HEARING BODY SERVED ON PARTIES/COUNSEL
3	07/31/2002	Transcript dated March 5, 2002
4	07/31/2002	DISK - TRA (3-5-02)
5	08/01/2002	Disciplinary Counsel's Objections to Report of Hearing Panel with Findings & Conclusions & to Order
6	08/01/2002	of Discipline
7	08/07/2002	CERTIFICATE OF RECORD (returned to hearing panel)
8	08/15/2002	Objections by Respondent William E. McKechnie to Report of Hearing Panel with Findings,Conclusions,
9	08/15/2002	and Order for Discipline
10	09/04/2002	Supplemental ROA (Entries 69-75)
11	09/13/2002	Disciplinary Counsel's Brief
12	09/13/2002	Disciplinary Counsel's APPENDIX
13	09/16/2002	RESPONDENT BRIEF
14	09/16/2002	DISK - RPB (e-mailed)
15	09/16/2002	Corrected page ii & iii of TOA & pages 15 & 16 for PTB
16	09/16/2002	DISK - PTB
17	09/25/2002	Request for Radio/TV Coverage - AP (e-mail dated 9-25-02 from Dale Wetzel) (APPROVED)
18	10/07/2002	Supplemental ROA (76-81)
19	10/29/2002	APPEARANCES: Loralyn K. Hegland; James S. Hill, William E. McKechnie
20	10/29/2002	ARGUED: Hegland; Hill (Vol. Y; Page 46)
21	10/29/2002	ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST
22	02/19/2003	DISPOSITION (Reprimanded): DISCIPLINE IMPOSED
23	02/19/2003	UNANIMOUS OPINION: Per Curiam
24	02/19/2003	William E. McKechnie publicly reprimanded for violation of N.D.R.Prof.C. 1.4(b)
25	02/19/2003	"A lawyer shall explain matters related to the representation to the extent reasonably
26	02/19/2003	necessary to permit the client to make informed decision."
27	02/19/2003	William E. McKechnie is to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings in the amount of $5375.59
28	02/20/2003	Judgment Mailed to Parties
29	03/10/2003	Affidavit of Publication - Grand Forks Herald
30	03/25/2003	Affidavit of Identification
31	03/25/2003	JUDGMENT TRANSCRIBED TO Grand Forks Co.
32	03/31/2003	Notice of filing from Grand Forks County District Court
33	04/11/2003	Letter from Paul Jacobson to James Hill indicating that McKechnie may make payments of $300 per
34	04/11/2003	month commencing June 1, 2003
35	04/23/2003	Monthly payment of $300 due (delete when satisfied): 06/01/2003
36	06/18/2003	Payment of $300 on costs and expenses of Disciplinary Board (receipt no. 14842)
37	06/18/2003	Acknowledgment of Partial Satisfaction of Judgment
38	09/11/2003	Payment of $600 on costs (for August & September)
39	09/18/2003	Acknowledgment of Partial Satisfaction of Judgment
40	12/02/2009	EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 02/10/2012