In re Lieber

949 N.W.2d 295 (Mem)

IN RE Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Daniel Martin LIEBER, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0207731.

A20-0808

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

September 30, 2020

ORDER

Natalie E. Hudson, Associate Justice

Respondent Daniel Martin Lieber has an extensive discipline history. In 2005, we disbarred Lieber. In re Lieber , 699 N.W.2d 722, 722 (Minn. 2005) (order). In 2013, Lieber became one of the few disbarred attorneys to be reinstated to the practice of law. In re Lieber , 834 N.W.2d 200, 201 (Minn. 2013). After being reinstated, Lieber committed additional misconduct. In re Lieber , 939 N.W.2d 284, 287 (Minn. 2020). In light of substantial mitigation, we disbarred Lieber but stayed the disbarment subject to conditions. Id. at 297–98. We warned Lieber that the stay would end and he would be disbarred if he was thereafter found to have committed other misconduct. Id. at 297.

The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility has filed a petition for disciplinary action and a supplementary petition for disciplinary action alleging that Lieber has committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline—namely, with respect to two clients, failing to obtain the client's informed consent to authorize him to act as a power of attorney, failing to explain the scope of the power of attorney, using the invalid power of attorney to sign checks on behalf of the client, and failing to state in his written contingent fee agreement whether attorney fees would be calculated before or after expenses were deducted; failing to keep a client informed about a matter; settling a client's claim without the client's consent; making false statements to an insurer about a matter; making a misrepresentation to a client about a settlement; omitting information and file materials that would have alerted successor counsel to his unauthorized settlement of the client's claim; making false statements to successor counsel; negligently misappropriating client funds; commingling earned fees in his trust account; failing to timely remit settlement proceeds to clients; and erroneous trust account bookkeeping. Respondent's conduct violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, 1.2(a), 1.4(a)(1)–(3), 1.4(b), 1.5(c), 1.15(a), 1.15(b), 1.15(c)(3)–(4), 1.15(h), 1.16(d), 4.1, and 8.4(c).

The parties have entered into a stipulation for discipline. In it, respondent waives his rights pursuant to Rule 14, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR),...