V. SUPREME COURT BRIEFS
A. Colors
The colors of the covers of briefs are specified by Minn. R. Lawyers Prof'l Resp. 14(g).
B. Appeal
"A party ordering a transcript shall specify in the initial brief to the Court the referee's findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations that are disputed." Minn. R. Lawyers Prof'l Resp. 14(e).
C. Standards of Review
1. Findings and Conclusions. "We review the referee's findings of fact and application of the law to the facts for clear error. In re Fett, 790 N.W.2d 840, 847 (Minn. 2010). We will conclude that the referee clearly erred if upon review of the record and the law we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. In re Ulanowski, 800 N.W.2d 785, 793 (Minn. 2011)." In re Stoneburner, 882 N.W.2d 200, 203 (Minn. 2016). The Court applies the same standard in appeals from admonitions, in which a Lawyers Board Panel has made findings and conclusions. In re Panel File No. 39302, 884 N.W.2d 661, 665 (Minn. 2016).
2. Questions of Law. Where an issue arises as to interpretation of the law—as opposed to application of the law to fact—is the standard on review clear error, or does the Court review de novo? In legal malpractice and other cases, the review standard is de novo. "This court reviews questions of law de novo." Francis v. Piper, 597 N.W.2d 922, 924 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999), citing Hubred v. Control Data Corp., 442 N.W.2d 308, 310 (Minn. 1989). In some discipline cases there are pure questions of law. For example, is a lawyer who appears in a matter pro se subject to those rules whose elements include "representing a client?" Does Minnesota Rule of Professional Conduct (MRPC) 8.4(c) (proscribing "dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation") require intent? The Court has addressed such questions without specifying the applicable standard of review. The author does not know of a case in which the standard was specified, but further research might disclose applicable...
