Sunday, January 8, 2017

Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility

I have mentioned before my petition to the Minnesota Supreme Court to change the lawyers rules of ethical conduct to at least make it a bit more difficult for the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility (OLPR) to shield lawyers from the consequences of breaking their ethical rules. That is what I hoped for anyway. However, the OLPR  recommended agaisnt the change and the petition was denied.

After much thought, as well as a broken printer/scanner that took quite a while to fix, I have to decided to break with my custom and post not only their letter to me recommending agaisnt the petition as well as my response to them but am also listing the OLPR director names. I am doing this because I believe the OLPR has acted in my case as well as numerous others in a clearly criminal manner. I feel I have given them every chance to right past mistakes and act ethically and within the law. However, they have consciously determined to act in a manner totally at odds with with the very purpose for which they exist. The OLPR has, in fact, become a criminal organization. Those of of us who believe in a just society need to recognize this and seek to reform it. By publishing the names of the directors I feel I am simply doing my civic duty.

Without further ado below are the names of the OLPR directors, followed by my letter to them and their letter to me.



  • Susan M Humiston

First Assistant Director:

  • Patrick R Burns

Assistant Directors:

  • Timothy M Burke
  • Craig D. Klausing
  • Cassie Hanson
  • Kevin T. Slator
  • Siama C. Brand
  • Megan Engelhardt
  • Joshua H. Brand
  • Binh T. Tuong
  • Amy M. Mahowald
  • Mary L. Galvin

My letter to the OLAP:
Susan M. Humiston
Director – Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility
500 Landmark Towers
345 St. Peter Street
St. Paul, MN 55102-1218
Re: In Petition to Amend Rule 6, Section A of the Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility and Letter Regarding the Matter Received by me dated October 12, 2016.
Dear Ms. Humiston,
I am writing to express my extreme dissatisfaction with the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility's recommendation against adopting the rule change I petitioned the Minnesota Supreme Court to make regarding Rule 6, Section A of the Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility. The petition was denied by the Supreme Court. 
My petition sought to amend the Rule to include:
The investigator assigned, if a lawyer, shall not be in active practice in the same area of law that the lawyer under investigation practices in. The investigator assigned, if not a lawyer, shall not be a person who works in a profession which commonly receives referrals from lawyers who practice in the same area of law as the lawyer under investigation. 
In your response you state that sufficient safeguards are in place already. This is difficult to understand  given the facts in the complaint I filed against [Nelly Wince] with your office. Indeed the behavior of your office had been blatantly unethical and clearly criminal.
I will remind you that:
  • My complaint against [Nelly Wince] is backed by the strongest, clearest evidence possible. It is difficult to understand how a reasonable person could think otherwise. The evidence, which was sent to you, is also available at: It is available to the public at the courthouse as well.
  • The original investigation never addressed the specific complaints. 
  • The appeals process, likewise, did not address the the complaints. 
  • The investigator was a person who makes his living off referrals from divorce attorneys. Your claim that this does not create a conflict of interest is difficult to understand. 
Furthermore, the “appeals process” you mention in your letter is rather opaque and consists of nothing more than a letter addressed to your office.  
It is evident that your office does not work to enforce the Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility but rather works to shield lawyers from complains that they broke the rules. As far as I can gather your office rarely, if ever, takes action against a lawyer unless they have been charged by law enforcement with a crime. I doubt you have ever disbarred or even reprimanded a lawyer for lying in Family Court which is the very reason it is so common.  And if you do not believe that it is common for lawyers to lie in Family Court you are simply out of touch with reality. 
The Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility are like the Iraqi Constitution under Saddam Hussein - a nice document but not followed.      
The devastation caused by the failure to take action of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility against lawyers who break the rules is enormous. It harms the innocent, including many children, and drives many victims to self-destructive behavior including, tragically, suicide. It also creates a culture of crime which is the logical outcome when people see that the privileged and powerful are able to operate outside the law. 
I doubt you consider yourself unethical and a criminal. Pretty much no one, no matter how badly they  behave, does. But your actions clearly demonstrate that you are. 
Please ensure that this letter is passed on to all Directors and Assistant Directors at the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility and confirm that you have does so to me.


.cc Minnesota State Senator <>, <> - Minneapolis StarTribune, Minneapolis FBI 
OLPR letter to recommending against my petition (you may want to download the second image to more easily read it):

1 comment:

  1. Your post has those facts which are not accessible from anywhere else. It’s my humble request to u please keep writing such remarkable articles Click here