In Re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Jill Alane Poppe MACKENZIE, a Minnesota Attorney, Reg. No. 0212568, 879 N.W.2d 324 (Minn. 2016). · Go Syfert
Search
In Re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Jill Alane Poppe MACKENZIE, a Minnesota Attorney, Reg. No. 0212568, 879 N.W.2d 324 (Minn. 2016). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
26 citation events (26 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State of Minnesota v. Adam Taylor Fravel (minn, 2026-04-29)
Treatment trajectory · 2016 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2016 2021 2026
Under fire — who is questioning this case
Citations from separate opinions of courts that could overrule this case. This is a warning signal, not a treatment change. The flag color above is unaffected.
Dissent State v. Willis (2017)
“Instead, the majority relies on our statement in State v. Sanchez-Sanchez that “[t]he word ‘sentencing’ is not superfluous because it still refers to the proceeding at which a judge listens to the parties’ sentencing arguments; considers all the relevant facts, including the special verdicts returned at an earlier Blakely trial; and then announces the sentence.” 879 N.W.2d 324 , 330 (Minn. 2016).”
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (rule) State of Minnesota v. Adam Taylor Fravel (3×) also: Cited "see"
Minn. · 2026 · confidence medium
“An error is clear or obvious if it contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” State v. Sanchez-Sanchez, 25 879 N.W.2d 324, 330 (Minn. 2016) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Michael Lee Vick, Appellant
Minn. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
Appellate courts “review the interpretation and application of the rules of evidence de novo.” State v. Sanchez-Sanchez, 879 N.W.2d 324, 329 (Minn. 2016).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Minnesota v. Evan James Fasthorse
Minn. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
When reviewing a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim, “we are limited to determining whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conclusion reached by the [fact-finder].” State v. Outlaw, 748 N.W.2d 349, 357 (Minn. App. 2008) (reviewing appellant’s claim that evidence was insufficient to show a pattern of criminal conduct under career-offender statute), rev. 2 A Blakely trial is conducted to determine whether aggravating sentencing factors exist, and “[a] criminal defendant has the right to a trial by jury or by the court.” State v. Sanchez-Sanchez, 879 N.W.2d 324, 330 (Minn. 20…
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Souder
Minn. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
State v. Sahchez-Sanchez, 879 N.W.2d 324, 329 (Minn. 2016).
examined Cited as authority (rule) State v. Willis (7×) also: Cited "see"
Minn. · 2017 · confidence medium
First, Willis notes that we recently interpreted the word “sentencing” to mean “the proceeding at which a judge listens to the parties’ sentencing arguments; considers all the relevant facts, including the special verdicts returned at an earlier Blakely trial; and then announces the sentence.” State v. Sanchez-Sanchez, 879 N.W.2d 324, 330 (Minn. 2016) (concluding that the word “sentencing” as used in Minn. R.
cited Cited as authority (rule) State of Minnesota v. Berry Alan Willis
Minn. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
State v. Sanchez-Sanchez, 879 N.W.2d 324, 330 (Minn.2016).
discussed Cited "see" State of Minnesota v. Irene Bernice Benjamin
Minn. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Sanchez-Sanchez, 879 N.W.2d 324, 330 (Minn. 2016) (stating that “[a] plain error is an error that is clear or obvious at the time of appeal,” in that “it contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotations omitted)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Jill Alane Poppe MacKenzie, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0212568.
A15-1888.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
May 16, 2016.
879 N.W.2d 324
Stras, Lillehaug.
Published

ORDER

The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed a petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent Jill Alane Poppe Mackenzie committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline — namely, neglecting three client matters and failing to communicate with these clients, see Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), and 1.4(a)(4); failing to deposit advanced fees she received from two clients into her trust account, see Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.15(c)(5); failing to refund the unearned portion of her retainer and return the client’s file after two clients terminated their representation, see Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.15(c)(4) and 1.16(d); and failing to cooperate with the Director, see Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.1(b).

The court deemed the allegations in the petition admitted, see Rule 13(b), Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR), and directed the parties to file memoranda regarding the appropriate discipline to impose in this case. Only the Director filed a memorandum. The Director recommends that the court indefinitely suspend respondent with no right to petition for reinstatement for 2 years.

The court has independently reviewed the file and approves the Director’s recommended discipline.

Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Respondent Jill Alane Poppe Mackenzie is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law, effective 14 days from the date of this order, with no right to petition for reinstatement for 2 years from the suspension date.

2. Respondent may petition for reinstatement pursuant to Rule 18(a)-(d), RLPR. Reinstatement is conditioned on successful completion of the written examination required for admission to the practice of law by the State Board of Law Examiners on the subject of professional responsibility and satisfaction of continuing legal education requirements pursuant to Rule 18(e), RLPR.

3. Respondent shall comply with Rule 26, RLPR (requiring notice of suspension to clients, opposing counsel, and tribunals) and shall pay $900 in costs pursuant to Rule 24, RLPR.

BY THE COURT:

M-David R. Stras Associate Justice LILLEHAUG, J,, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.