1. Whether Bolinske violated Rule 1.5(a), N.D.R. Prof. Conduct, by making an agreement for, charging, or collecting an unreasonable fee through having an internally inconsistent fee agreement language and by including a provision for a “nonrefundable” $10,000 retainer in addition to the 33 1/3% contingent fee within his agreements with Carter and the Watsons.
2. Whether Bolinske violated Rule 1.15(e), N.D.R. Prof. Conduct, by failing to maintain possession of the funds being disputed by Carter and the Watsons in a separate account from his own until the dispute had been resolved.
3. Whether Bolinske violated Rule 1.16(e), N.D.R. Prof. Conduct, by failing to take steps to the extent reasonably practicable, after the termination of representation, to surrender the client files to Carter and the Watsons and to refund any unearned fees or provide any accountings as to the $10,000 retainer payments they had made.
4. Whether the Hearing Panel’s recommended sanction of a suspension, with payments of restitution, and the assessment of costs was an appropriate sanction given the underlying violations of the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct that were found.

1. Is the Hearing Panel’s decision that Bolinske’s combined non-refundable fee – contingent fee agreement was “unreasonable”, arbitrary, capricious and/or unreasonable in that it is (1) legally defective and (2) not supported by the required “clear and convincing evidence?”
2. Is the Hearing Panel’s decision that Bolinske refund $5,000 of his non-refundable fee, which was clearly earned, arbitrary, capricious and/or unreasonable in that it is (1) legally defective and (2) not supported by the required “clear and convincing evidence?”
3. Is the Hearing Panel’s decision that Bolinske failed to comply with the ethical Requirement that an attorney return a client’s file arbitrary, capricious and/or unreasonable, in that it is (1) legally defective and (2) not supported by the required “clear and convincing evidence?”
4. Was the entire attorney disciplinary process and its administration in this case so flawed and procedurally defective that the resulting decision was arbitrary, capricious and/or unreasonable?
5. Is the Hearing Panel’s decision that Bolinske be suspended from the practice of law arbitrary, capricious and/or unreasonable in that it is (1) legally defective and (2) not supported by the required “clear and convincing evidence?”
6. Is the Hearing Panel’s decision that Bolinske pay over $10,000 in attorney fees and costs, under the circumstances here present, arbitrary, capricious and/or unreasonable in that it is (1) legally defective and (2) not supported by the required “clear and convincing evidence?”
7. Was the Hearing Panel’s decision defective, null and void because its members, and the Hearing Panel chair, failed to take the required written oath of office and file it with the Secretary of State, as required by the statutes of North Dakota and it’s Constitution?