Disciplinary Board v. Stensland
for Disciplinary Action Against
Monty J. Stensland, 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.
Monty J. Stensland, Respondent
| Petitioner: | Brent J. Edison | |
| Respondent: | Monty Jay Stensland |
1. Respondent objects to the findings and conclusions that he violated N.D.R. Lawyer Discipline 6.3, in that 6.3 is an ambiguous rule that contains no definitions. Specifically, "All Clients being represented in Pending Matters," can be interpreted in more than one context, i.e., pending matters, pending cases, pending actions are synonymous terms. Pending is a legal term not a layman's term, so in Rule 6.3, Disciplinary Counsel asserts that it should be read as a layman.
2. Respondent complied in good faith with his interpretation of Rule 6.3 in providing notices, and in filing affidavit of each.
3. Respondent requests that the Court take notice of the caption of the Report of Hearing Panel herein, which states "In the Matter of" in the very first line. Moreover, the first paragraph commences with the words, "This matter came on for hearing." Respondent takes the position that Disciplinary Counsel by using such language has made the point for respondent that the terms pending matter, pending action, and pending case are synonymous.
4. Respondent objects to the finding that he failed to take McLaurin's telephone calls during the 60 day suspension, in that Ms. McLaurin did not claim to have made any telephone calls specifically during the suspension period.
5. Respondent did not claim to have read Rule 6.3 over a thousand times prior to sending out notices, the context of his statement was referencing having read Rule 6.3 over a thousand times after having been served with disciplinary complaint. Prior to sending notices, Respondent read Rule 6.3 several times. Respondent further objects, due to the wording of Rule 6.3(A)(3), which states, "Opposing Counsel in pending matters, or in the absence of such counsel, the adverse parties," opposing counsel and/or adverse parties can only exist where service and/or filing has occurred, which leads one to interpret both paragraphs 6.3(A)(1) and 6.3(A)(3) in like manner.
6. Respondent objects to the panel's report, as containing no clear and convincing support for the findings and conclusion that 6.3(A)(1) requiring definition that" all clients being represented in pending matters" is equivalent to "all clients being
Add Docket 20080213 RSS