Opinions Archive

1. A panel of the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board did not clearly err by finding that appellant attorney communicated about a litigated matter with a party whom he knew was then represented by another attorney in the case, and thereby violated the no-contact rule, Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 4.2. 2. In this case, a private admonition is the appropriate discipline for an attorney who violated the no-contact rule, Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 4.2. Private admonition affirmed.

Appellant challenges the denial of his petition under Minn. Stat. § 626.04 (2016) for the return of property seized following his arrest. He asserts that the property was obtained via an unlawful search and seizure. We affirm.

In these consolidated appeals, appellant Leslie Paul Johnson challenges his convictions for criminal sexual conduct and possession of pornographic work. He argues that the district court erred by finding that the search warrant, which enabled police to obtain the child-pornography evidence, was supported by probable cause. He also argues that, ancillary to that probable-cause finding, the district court erroneously denied his 1 motion to suppress evidence seized from his apartment. Appellant also argues that the district court erred by not making a factual finding concerning which offense occurred first before sentencing. Appellant also argues in a pro se brief that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel in file A17-1623. We affirm appellant’s convictions in both appeals, and remand to the district court for additional findings in appellate file A17-1623.

Appellant challenges the district court’s termination of his parental rights, arguing that the district court erred by proceeding against him by “default” because he was present * Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10. in court. On this record, the district court simply misused the term “default” in its order. Because it was a harmless error, we affirm.

Appellant challenges his conviction of felony fourth-degree assault, arguing that the district court plainly erred by allowing testimony that appellant resided in a unit at the Minnesota Sex Offender Program for clients with significant behavioral issues. Appellant raised several additional issues in a pro se supplemental brief. We affirm.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent Brian Campbell Fischer's conditional reinstatement is revoked and that he is indefinitely suspended, effective 10 days from the date of this order. Respondent shall comply with Rule 26, RLPR (requiring notice of suspension to clients, opposing counsel, and tribunals). Respondent may apply for reinstatement under Rule 18(t), RLPR, by filing with the Clerk of the Appellate Courts and serving on the Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility proof that he has received a passing score on such written examination as may be required for admission to the practice of law by the State Board of Law Examiners on the subject of professional responsibility.

Appellant challenges his conviction of violating a domestic-abuse no-contact order (DANCO), arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that he was denied a fair trial because of erroneous statements the prosecutor made about the law during closing argument. Because the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and the prosecutor did not commit prejudicial error, we affirm.

Respondent University of Minnesota (the University) collects a fee from its students to fund student groups on its campus. Relator is a student group called Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow (C

On appeal from an order terminating their parental rights, appellant mother and appellant father argue that the district court abused its discretion by terminating their  Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10. parental rights under Minnesota Statutes section 260C.301, subdivision 1(b)(2), (4), and (5) (2016). Appellants also argue that respondent county failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify them with their child. We affirm.

In this dispute regarding attorney fees, appellants, an individual and an LLC, challenge the district court’s award of summary judgment to respondent law firm on respondent’s breach-of-contract and unjust-enrichment claims, as well as its award of attorney fees. We affirm the district court’s award of summary judgment and attorney fees to respondent on its breach-of-contract claim against appellant individual. We reverse the district court’s award of summary judgment and attorney fees to respondent on its breach- of-contract claim against appellant LLC and on its unjust-enrichment claims against both appellants. We remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.