Paul Overson Disciplinary Petition

Accessible document transcript

[Page 1]
FILE NO. ________________
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN SUPREME COURT
----------------------------------------------------
In Re Petition for Disciplinary ActionPETITION FOR
against PAUL E. OVERSON, DISCIPLINARY ACTION
a Minnesota Attorney,
Registration No. 0195005.
----------------------------------------------------
TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility (Director) files
this petition upon the parties’ agreement pursuant to Rules 10(a) and 12(a), Rules on
Lawyers Professional Responsibility. The Director alleges:
The above-named attorney (respondent) was admitted to practice law in
Minnesota on October 28, 1988. Respondent currently practices law in Lake Elmo,
Minnesota.
Respondent has committed the following unprofessional conduct warranting
public discipline:
DISCIPLINARY HISTORY
On August 22, 2012, respondent was issued an admonition for withdrawing from
representation the business day before his client’s deposition.
FIRST COUNT
A.B. and J.B. Matter
1. A.B. and J.B. had a child together.
December 4, 2023

[Page 2]
2
2.On June 23, 2022, A.B. filed a petition for an order for protection (OFP)
against J.B. J.B. disputed the abuse allegations and asked that the matter be set for
hearing. A hearing was scheduled and, ultimately, rescheduled for July 25, 2022.
3.On June 27, 2022, J.B. commenced a separate custody proceeding.
4.By July 11, 2022, both parties had counsel in the OFP matter. Respondent
represented A.B., and attorney R.M. represented J.B.
5.On July 25, 2022, the hearing on the petition for an OFP was held before
Judge F.G. Respondent, R.M. and both parties were present. Before the hearing began,
the parties reached an agreement.
6. At the start of the hearing, respondent informed the court that the parties
had agreed that the issues in the OFP case would be dealt with in the custody case, and
the OFP case could be dismissed. R.M. then read the details of that agreement into the
record. The judge asked each party if the agreement was correct, and both A.B. and J.B.
replied it was.
7. At the end of the hearing, the judge directed the attorneys to submit a
dismissal order for the court to sign. No one specified who would draft the proposed
order, neither attorney did so, and no order of dismissal was entered.
8.During communications in the couple months after the hearing,
respondent’s client told respondent of additional allegations that respondent’s client felt
justified an OFP and that she wanted a hearing on those allegations. Respondent did
not take any action at that time to file a motion to seek a new OFP based upon the new
allegations.
9.On September 2, 2022, an Initial Case Management Conference (ICMC)
was held by Zoom in the custody matter. Presiding was Judge D.M., a different judge
than the judge who had presided at the OFP hearing. J.B. appeared and was
self-represented. Respondent was present with his client, A.B.

[Page 3]
3
10.Because the court file in the OFP matter did not contain a dismissal order,
Judge D.M. erroneously believed that the OFP matter remained pending and required
resolution. In fact, it was already resolved. See¶¶ 5-6, above.
11.The court started the hearing by informing the parties of the purposes of
an ICMC and confirming the parties wanted to participate in Early Neutral Evaluation.
12.The court then stated:
THE COURT: Now, as I was digging around in the file in
preparation for today, I think there’s an OFP file that
was in limbo. If we need to do something about that,
which means that if -- if that is still a request, I need to
get something on the calendar for a hearing on that.
What I saw, Mr. Overson, was that that was a request
by your client that [R.M.] had stepped in at that point
and wanted that handled by a district court judge
rather than by a referee, and I think there was an
initial hearing in front of Judge [F.G.] but the actual
trial hasn’t been scheduled, and I think a trial -- now
that this file is in front of me, the trial would be in
front of me as well, so if the request stands -- and I
think it was set on for hearing without a temporary
order -- if that request stands and you’re requesting a
trial date, I’ll set that up. Is that your request on your
client’s behalf, Mr. Overson?
MR. OVERSON: I will consult with my client, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Do you want to talk to her now while I’m
taking other cases --
MR. OVERSON: Sure.
THE COURT: -- so I’ve got a plan of action?
MR. OVERSON: That would be good.
THE COURT: Great. You’ll see an invitation to join meeting. I’ll let
you have that conversation, and when you’re finished
with that and come back -- Mr. Overson, when you’re

[Page 4]
4
on camera, I’ll know that you’re ready for me to recall
the case.
MR. OVERSON: Okay. Thank you.
THE COURT: Okay. Thanks. [J.B.], hang around. Let’s find out
what’s happening with that.
13. At this point, respondent and his client met in a separate breakout room.
Respondent’s client reiterated her fear of J.B. and told respondent that she wanted a
hearing on her request for an OFP. Respondent did not explain to his client that the
prior request had been resolved, and that to proceed, a new request would need to be
filed, even though respondent knew these facts to be true.
14.Then, the hearing continued:
THE COURT: [J.B.] is still here and Mr. Overson has returned as
well. Mr. Overson, you were talking about the OFP
case with your client. Tell me where that stands
today.
MR. OVERSON: Where that stands, Your Honor, is that we would like
to set a trial date on that. It doesn’t have to be
immediate. It could be two weeks out or something.
In the meantime, if [J.B.] has an attorney on that case,
which maybe that’s [R.M.], and maybe we just work
something out possibly in advance of that.
THE COURT: Sure.
MR. OVERSON: We would like to at least set a date for that.
THE COURT: Okay.
15.While none of respondent’s statements to the tribunal actually were false,
respondent knew and remembered at the time he made this statement to the court that
the parties had resolved and agreed to dismiss the OFP matter. Yet, respondent failed
to inform the court that the parties had agreed to dismiss the OFP matter, failed to
inform the court that the parties had agreed to handle those issues in the custody matter

[Page 5]
5
without an order for protection, and failed to inform the court that all that remained in
the OFP matter was entry of a dismissal order. Instead, respondent stated that he
wanted a trial date in the OFP matter.
16.Respondent made his statement knowing his statement would mislead the
court into believing the OFP matter was not settled. Respondent’s statement led the
court to believe a hearing was needed on these allegations and allowed his client and
J.B. to understand that there would be such a hearing, despite and without disclosing
the parties’ agreement to dismiss the OFP case.
17.Respondent could not have made a verbal request for a hearing in the
OFP matter on any allegations not included in the original petition for an OFP. An OFP
hearing may only occur upon written request, and respondent had not filed a written
request setting forth any new allegations. Respondent, an experienced practitioner, was
aware of these requirements.
18. Relying on respondent’s misleading statement, the judge said he would
work to schedule a hearing in the OFP matter:
THE COURT: Perfect. All right. So, Mr. [J.B.], I do show that [R.M.]
is representing you on the order for protection file,
correct?
[J.B.]: Correct, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Let me -- I need to do a little bit of playing
around with the calendar. I’ll figure out a date. We’ll
get an order out that will address that.
MR. OVERSON: Okay.
THE COURT: Okay. Great. So I’ll look to hear from you on the
custody file. You look to hear from me on the OFP
file.

[Page 6]
6
19.Respondent failed during the hearing to correct his misleading statement
and failed during the hearing to inform the court that the parties had agreed to dismiss
the OFP matter.
20. After the hearing, respondent continued to fail to correct his misleading
statement and continued to fail to inform the court the parties had agreed to dismiss the
OFP matter. Respondent also failed after the hearing to submit a proposed order for
dismissal to the judge who heard the OFP matter.
21. As a result of respondent’s conduct, the court looked to schedule a
hearing on allegations not properly part of a matter, and to do so in a matter the parties
had agreed to dismiss.
22. J.B. was concerned the court was looking to schedule a hearing in the OFP
matter when the parties had resolved that matter. J.B. contacted R.M., his counsel in the
OFP matter, who on September 8, 2022, sent a letter to Judge F.G., the judge in the OFP
matter. R.M. requested the court enter an order dismissing the OFP matter based on the
parties’ agreement. The court did so.
23. The next day, September 9, 2022, which was a week after the ICMC, R.M.
sent a letter to Judge D.M., the judge in the custody matter, enclosing the transcript of
the July 25 hearing in the OFP matter and notifying Judge D.M. that the OFP matter had
been dismissed.
24.Respondent’s conduct in knowingly making a misleading statement to the
court during a hearing, and subsequent failure to correct his misleading statement,
violated Rule 8.4(c) and (d), Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct.
WHEREFORE, the Director respectfully prays for an order of this Court
imposing appropriate discipline, awarding costs and disbursements pursuant to the

[Page 7]
7
Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility, and for such other, further or different
relief as may be just and proper.
SUSAN M. HUMISTON
DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF LAWYERS
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
Attorney No. 0254289
445 Minnesota Street, Suite 2400
St. Paul, MN 55101-2139
(651) 296-3952
Susan.Humiston@courts.state.mn.us

and

TIMOTHY M. BURKE
SENIOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
Attorney No. 019248x
Tim.Burke@courts.state.mn.us