Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board

As outlined in the Evidence section, when I obtained definitive proof that Nelly Wince had knowingly and maliciously lied in court, I submitted a complaint to Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board Lawyer's Office of Professional Conduct. At the time I still believed the legal process was at least at its core just. However, I soon learned the true extent of just how corrupt the system was.

The Board did open an investigation and at first assigned a real estate lawyer to investigate. However, the investigator was soon swapped out for someone who, I only learned much later, was a mediator that earned his living through referrals from divorce lawyers. The reason the original investigator was replaced was vague – something about lack of time.

It seemed to me at a minimum that Nelly Wince would be reprimanded and in all likelihood receive a much more serious punishment. After all, I had her red handed. The Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct are very clear and Wince had clearly violated them. I am not sure it is even possible to have stronger evidence that I had as it was based solely on documents filed with the court and a court transcript.

So what happened? In an true Orwellian manner, the investigator found Nelly Wince not guilty without ever addressing the charges. He seemed to state that because I had not used a lawyer in preparing the docket it question, the one which Wince had lied in court about, that she was not guilty. In fact, the docket was prepared correctly and even reviewed by the the County Family Court Self-Help Service Center prior to submission. The investigator did not question any of the facts. It was as if he was saying that by not paying up to a lawyer I could not expect justice. Al Capone would have loved the logic. Maybe some day I'll publish a redacted version of the finding.

I then appealed the ruling which was interesting as there is almost no information available on how to do so. It tuned out an appeal consisted of nothing more than a letter to the Office of Professional Conduct. The appeal was likewise rejected, again with out addressing any of the issues. Which, if nothing else, at least took aways the ability of the office to claim that the investigator and not the office was corrupt.

No comments:

Post a Comment