At page 536 quotation omitted3 citing cases
- Paclik v. CIY Foods, Inc., No. 4:23-cv-04131 (D.S.D. July 29, 2024). LLC, 826 N.W.2d 530, 536 (Minn. 2013).
- Cheri Glassick v. Wells Fed. Bank, Stewart Title Guar. Co., Nw. Title Agency, Inc., Tim Breuer, Mfrs. Bank & Trust Co., & Stewart Title Guar. Co., & third party v. Corey Hauer, third party, No. A16-247 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2016).unpublished(quotation omitted)
- Eric Wong v. Chatterbox Pub Enter., Inc., Tyrone Sharpe, No. A15-1715 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 1, 2016).unpublished(quotations omitted)
At page 538 quotation omitted2 citing cases
- 650 North Main Ass'n v. Frauenshuh, Inc. (Territorial Springs Riverview, LLC, Frauenshuh Sweeney, LLC), Kraus-Anderson Constr. Co., Doe Affiliates 1-20, & Kraus-Anderson Constr. Co., & Third Party v. Berwald Roofing Co., Inc., Third Party, 885 N.W.2d 478 (Minn. Ct. App. 2016).publishedMoreover, the Minnesota Supreme Court has stated that in conducting a lodestar analysis there is no “dollar value proportionality rule.” Green, 826 N.W.2d at 538.
- Cnty. of Scott v. Johnston, 841 N.W.2d 357 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013).published(quotation omitted)
At page 533 noting that the district court awarded plaintiff $221,499 in attorney fees after plaintiff received a $25,157 damages judgment1 citing case
- Jovani Nassar v. U.S. Home Corp. d/b/a Lennar Homes, No. A14-1108 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 27, 2015).unpublished(noting that the district court awarded plaintiff $221,499 in attorney fees after plaintiff received a $25,157 damages judgment)
At page 534 quotation omitted1 citing case
- Marie Delores Green v. BMW of North Am., LLC, No. A14-378 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 10, 2014).unpublished (quotation omitted)
At page 535 cited at this page1 citing case
- Bollom v. Brunswick Corp., No. 0:18-cv-03105 (D. Minn. Mar. 30, 2021).“The lodestar method requires the court to determine the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.” Green, 826 N.W.2d at 535 (citation omitted). “[T]he fee applicant bears the burden of e…
At page 539 quotation 13 omitted1 citing case
- Victoria L. Sloan v. Kelly O'Neil, Regina Sabbia, Kerrie Cathcart, Uptown Realty & Mgmt., LLC, No. A16-611 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2016).unpublished(quotation 13 omitted)
At page 588 cited at this page1 citing case
- Curtis B. Braatz v. Parsons Elec. Co. & Zurich North Am./GAB Robins, Inc., Relators., 850 N.W.2d 706 (Minn. 2014).published Parsons argues, however, that Green requires the compensation judge to consider private sector “billing judgment” and heed our admonition that “[hjours that are not properly billed to one’s client are also not properly billed to one’s adve…
Other citing cases
- Comm'r Of Transp. v. Krause, 925 N.W.2d 30 (Minn. 2019).published
- Faricy Law Firm, P.A. v. API, Inc. Asbestos Settlement Trust, 912 N.W.2d 652 (Minn. 2018).published
ORDER
The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed a petition and a supplementary petition for disciplinary action against respondent Louis Andrew Stockman alleging that respondent committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline, namely, neglect and non-communication in two client matters, failing to respond to communications from opposing counsel, including discovery requests, making a false statement to opposing counsel, failing to properly supervise another lawyer in his law firm, failing to comply with and making false statements regarding his compliance with the notice requirements for a previous suspension from the practice of law, displaying signage and utilizing law firm and other designations falsely implying that respondent continued to be licensed to practice law while he was suspended, engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, and contracting for legal advertising in various telephone directories that would be distributed during the period of his suspension, in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 3.2, 3.4(c) and (d), 4.1, 5.1(a) and (c)(2), 5.5(a) and (b)(2), 7.1, 8.1(a), and 8.4(c) and (d), Rule 26, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR), and this court’s February 17, 2012, order suspending respondent. Respondent waives his procedural rights under Rule 14, RLPR, withdraws his previously filed answer, and admits the allegations of the petition and supplementary petition. The parties jointly recommend that the appropriate discipline is a 6-month suspension.
This court has independently reviewed the file and approves the jointly recommended disposition.
Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein,
IT IS ORDERED that respondent Louis Andrew Stockman is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law, effective from the date of filing of this order, with no right to petition for reinstatement for a minimum of 6 months from the date of this order. Respondent may petition for reinstatement pursuant to Rule 18(a)-(d), RLPR. Reinstatement is conditioned on successful completion of the professional responsibility portion of the state bar examination and satisfaction of continuing legal education requirements, pursuant to Rule 18(e), RLPR. 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:
/s/Alan C. Page Associate Justice