OLPR Claims Rules Do NOT Allow for Errors to be corrected! Errors Remain Part of Record FOREVER!

According to the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility (OLPR), when the OLPR makes an error, the error remains a part of the record FOREVER. In an email dated June 15th, 2015 PAACLA Director Jessica Anlauf contacted First Assistant Director Patrick Burns, who was responsible for an OLPR disposition containing clear errors of fact, including, an error where Mr. Burns claimed that a previous complaint had not been appealed and therefore Mr. Burns denied Director Anlauf the ability to include previously submitted information. This statement was a clear error, as the previous complaint was in fact appealed to an LPRB member, who returned a disposition dismissing that complaint without investigation, whilst stating the complaint could be re-opened if circumstances changed (ie. additional evidence). Mr. Burns also erred when making the statement that previously submitted information could not be included in subsequent complaints as "RULE 19. EFFECT OF PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS" clearly states "(b) Disciplinary Proceedings. (2) Conduct Previously Considered Where No Investigation Was Taken And Discipline Was Not Warranted. Conduct in previous lawyer disciplinary proceedings of any jurisdiction, including revocation of conditional admission proceedings which was not investigated, is admissible, even if it was determined in the proceedings without investigation that discipline was not warranted." Mr. Burns made the false assertions regarding the Rules, in effort to deter Director Anlauf from submitting new evidence regarding previously submitted allegations which were never investigated. Mr. Burns went so far as to create his own Rule, which in fact, did not follow proper proceedings for such creation as mandated by the MN Supreme Court. Instead, Mr. Burns claimed that because Director Anlauf had not appealed the earlier decision (clearly erroneous in itself) that somehow Director Anlauf should be denied her rights under Rule 19. This is yet another example of the blatant bias against complainants by the OLPR. Mr. Burns continued to make false assertions of fact and law, including making the previously discussed absurd statements regarding an attorney's "Right" (according to him) to interfere with an individual's accommodation request filed under the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act. It is extremely important to have only factual information included within dispositions, as the OLPR has already declared that dispositions are not to be kept confidential and instead may be used against complainants, by the attorney accused, in effort to strip those individuals of their property or rights (including parental rights). The OLPR has declared that simply by using a complaint and/or disposition in an external proceeding in effort to strip an individual of their parental rights, it cannot be concluded that in doing so, the attorney acted in retaliation. Therefore, including false assertions of fact and law, can adversely effect external proceedings, and go so far as to cause a mother or father to lose their custodial rights, and complainants should at least be able to trust the OLPR to include only factual and truthful information. However, the OLPR has declared that they will not make such an assurance. In effort to correct the false information, Director Anlauf wrote to Mr. Burns requesting that errors within the disposition be corrected and citing Civil Rules of Procedure 60.01, which must be followed during regular judicial proceedings. Specifically Director Anlauf wrote, "I am requesting the OLPR correct these errors as likened to those allowed for in Civil Rule 60.01 Clerical Mistakes: 'Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders, or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time upon its own initiative or on the motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the court orders.'" First Assistant Director Patrick Burns responded to Director Anlauf's plea, with the claim: "There is no provision in the rules governing lawyer disciplinary proceedings for the relief you seek in your email." This in turn means, ANY ERROR will go uncorrected (and yes errors do sometimes occur in regular court proceedings, hence the creation of Civil Rule 60.01, allowing an individual to request a court correct the error) and may be relied upon, in external proceedings, including those which determine an individual's custodial rights. The OLPR, has unbridled discretion regarding what is even included within a disposition. The OLPR can corruptly provide false and misleading statements, include misleading facts or allegations, or omit essential information, even incite discrimination and retaliation against complainants, WITHOUT any method for a complainant to request the error be corrected, or the decision be reviewed by a court of law. Essentially, the OLPR could state within a disposition, that "the rules require a complainant to acquire a signature from the MN Governor Mark Dayton prior to submitting any complaint," and the complainant would have NO ABILITY to have the error corrected. Not only would the false information remain within the disposition, but the complainant, who more than likely has not studied the Rules enough to know the OLPR is abusing their discretion, would more than likely retreat without argument. This goes even further, where the OLPR has an opportunity to provide completely inaccurate information within the dispositions, which have an completely adverse effect not only on the original handling of the complaint but the appeals process at level two with the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board. One real-life example, involves the original complaint which Co-Director Kathy Anlauf filed in 2015. The OLPR included false assertions of ADA law, (unsupported by any statute or case law, because it simply doesn't exist). Co-Director Anlauf then appealed that decision to an LPRB member, who was not an attorney member, and based upon the OLPR's false assertions of law, once again dismissed the complaint, and referenced the false assertion of law as reason behind her dismissal. This is an absolute public policy issue. The OLPR's unbridled discretion coupled with their refusal to correct obvious and gross errors within their dispositions, is resulting in total chaos at the expense of the public. The Rules, only allow a complainant to appeal a decision to the MN Appeals Court when it has already been sent on for investigation and ruled upon. According to the OLPR statistics, 43% of all complaints are dismissed without investigation. That is 43% of all complaints which are never allowed to be reviewed before a neutral external entity, such as the MN Appeals Court. This in turn means, any false information supplied by the OLPR within those 43% (552 complaints) whether intentional or by mistake, will remain a part of the record FOREVER. It is ABSOLUTELY ABHORRENT that an agency of the MN Supreme Court, would be granted such unbridled discretion, that the agency should be allowed to pick and choose WHATEVER: whether it be true or false, malicious, biased, contrary to statutory law, etc. to include, or WHATEVER to omit, without any oversight what-so-ever. This is certainly a public policy issue that must be investigated by the MN Legislative Auditor. In Re: Discipline of Benson, the MN Supreme Court stated, "Since lawyers are granted a monopoly to perform legal services for hire, * * * they, like all monopolies, must be subject to strict regulation with respect to admission to practice and to the performance of professional services, as well as to public accountability for adherence to the rule of law, canons of ethics, and standards of professional responsibility." Here we have a monopoly being overseen BY THE MONOPOLY! Contrary to Mr. Burns' assertions, the OLPR's own Rules set forth by the MN Supreme Court allow for the OLPR to implement policies which are in accordance with the Rules. In particular, Rule 2. which outlines the purpose of the OLPR states, "It is of primary importance to the public and to the members of the Bar that cases of lawyers’ alleged disability or unprofessional conduct be promptly investigated and disposed of with fairness and justice, having in mind the public, the lawyer complained of and the profession as a whole, and that disability or disciplinary proceedings be commenced in those cases where investigation discloses they are warranted. Such investigations and proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with these Rules." Certainly it can be concluded that correcting ERRORS within dispositions, would be in accordance with the overall PURPOSE of disciplinary proceedings as outlined in Rule 2, as it would obviously be fair for he OLPR to include CORRECT and FACTUAL information within their disposition. It may also be concluded that the OLPR's policy NOT to correct errors, would clearly be in violation of Rule 2, as it is completely and utterly unfair that the OLPR would maintain knowingly false information within a disposition, that which was used in support of the OLPR's decision to dismiss the complaint without investigation. Once again, the OLPR has clearly shown that it is biased toward attorneys and acts as a giant monopoly shield for attorneys whose misconduct should be investigated if the OLPR were to act fairly and properly. The MN Legislative Auditor must investigate the OLPR to expose these injustices and dangers which affect the public at large.