yuan November 13, 2019 FILE NO. A18-1967 Omega! Art-aunt Cour: STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action against KARLOWBA R. ADAMS POWELL, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0327335. BRIEF OF RESPONDENT Bobby Joe Champion Attorney No. 0262614 1501 Hall Curve N. Minneapolis, MN 55411 (612) 518?8870 ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT SUSAN M. HUMISTON DIRECTOR Attorney No. 0254289 OFFICE OF LAWYERS PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY 1500 Landmark Towers 345 St, Peter Street St. Paul, MN 55102-1218 (651) 296-3952 TABLE OF CONTENTS Egg Table of Authorities 4 Legal Issues 5 Statement of the Case 6 Statement of Facts 6 Argument 24 A The Record Does Not Support the Referee's Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law 24 1. The Referee Incorrectly Found that Respondent Knowingly Made Misrepresentations to the Court and the Director. The Referee Incorrectly Found that Ms. Adams Powell Did Not Cooperate with the Director. go 3. The Referee Ignored Many Important Facts Provided at the Hearing. 4. The Referee Inappropriately Rejected Respondent's Subjective Reasonable Good Faith Reliance on Her Attorney?s Representation andjeremy Stirewalt?s Representation. 5. Respondent Did Not Knowingly Violate Court Orders and Rules. 6. The Referee Ignored Mitigating Factors and Remorse Shown at the Hearing. The Recommended Sanction Is Punitive 31 I, Respondent's Conduct Does Not Warrant Inde?nite Suspension or a Rule 18 31 2. I'I?he Cumulative Weight of Respondent's Conduct is not Substantial 34 3. Respondent's Conduct Did Not Cause Harm to the Public or the Legal Profession 35 4. The Referee Improperly Notes Some Aggravating Factors and Ignored Some Mitigating Factors 37 5. Ms. Adams Powell Accepted Responsibility, Demonstrated \Vhat She Changed to Prevent Similar Acts in the Future and Showed Remorse 37 Conclusion 38 Certificate of Brief Length 41 TABLE Bulgqf Rule 14(e) 24 Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct Appendix 1, Section ll, Rule 115(h) 33,36 Rule 33(a)(1) 22 Rule 3.4 (c 19 Rule Rule 55(a) Rule 58 Rule 81(3) 17 Rule 8.4( 17,22 Rule 8.4 17,22 Cases: In re orgersonStanbury, 561 507, 512 (Minn. 1997) 31 In re Albrecht, 779 530, 540 (Minn. 2010) 31 In re Grigsby, 815 836, 844 (Minn.2012) 31 In re Murrin, 821 195, 208 (Minn. 2012) 35 4 LEGAL ISSUES 1. Are the referee's ?ndings of fact and conclusions of law, and recommendations for discipline clearly erroneous? The referee concluded that Ms. Adams Powell knowingly false statements to a tribunal, the Director and others, engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, failed to provide proper receipt for cash payment, and failed to safeguard client funds, and intentionally ignored a court order. Respondent disputes the referee?s findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations for discipline STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Director ?led a Petition for Discipline against Ms. Adams Powell on October 31, 2018. Alleging false statements to a tribunal, the Director and others, unauthorized practice of law, failure to provide proper receipt for cash payment, and failure to safeguard client funds. This matter came before the Referee Perkins on June 23rd and June 24, 2019. Bobby Joe Champion appeared on behalf of Ms. Adams Powell. Ms. Binh Tuong, Assistant Director of the Board of Professional Responsibility, appeared on behalf of the Board. Referee Perkins rendered his Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendations of Sanctions on September 15, 2019. Ms. Adams Powell requested the hearing transcripts on September 23, 2019 and she appeals the referee?s ?ndings. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS 1. Ms. Adams Powell was admitted to the practice of law in Minnesota on September 18, 2003. She began her practice at Walker Law Offices, PA. in October 2003 and ventured into solo-practice in September 201 1. Since September 2011, she has been a full-time solo-practioner. Her primary focus has been criminal defense and family law. 2. The Director ?led a Petition for Discipline against Ms. Adams Powell on October 31, 2018. Alleging false statements to a tribunal, the Director and others, unauthorized practice of law, failure to provide proper receipt for cash payment, and failure to safeguard client funds. 3. Ms. Adams Powell has two prior private admonishments in 2007 and 2016. She was at Walker Law Of?ces at this time not in solo practice. Ms. Adams Powell inherited these ?les at different points in there representation. So some ?les maybe had not been worked on for some time and she was picking it up at the end trying to close out the ?le in the best way possible. (Tr. P. lines 6-25). Ms. Adams Powell inherited the issues that came with it. (Tr. P. 477 lines 1-2). 4. Ms. Adams Powell?s mother was diagnosed with breast cancer and was undergoing chemotherapy, radiation, and multiple surgeries during the time period in question as well as the time period in the 2016 Petition. As her eldest child, Ms. Adams Powell facilitated her care and provided emotional support. She 6 had a lot on her plate, helping her mother traveling from Minnesota to Illinois, managing her practice, and parenting her son alone. This was a very stressful and traumatic experience for Ms. Adams Powell, her and her mother are very close. Ms. Adams Powell?s judgment may have been compromised and she may have made mistakes but any wrong?al actions were not intentional. 5. Ms. Adams Powell was also severely stressed out about being suspended and dealing with the whole process. 6. Ms. Adams Powell met Benjamin Bump by way of a mutual friend referral. Ms. Adams Powell agreed to represent Mr. Bump in an OFP case and a Custody case in Hennepin County District Court for a ?at fee of $2,500. 7. Ms. Adams Powell agreed to represent Robert Walker in a family matter in Hennepin County for a ?at fee of $2,500. 8. Ms. Adams Powell entered into a Stipulation for Discipline with the Director of the Board of Professional Responsibility on June 12, 2017. Ms. Adams Powell and the Director agreed to a 45-day public suspension effective 14 days from the date of the suspension order, waiver of Rule 18, $900 fine, and 2 years probation upon reinstatement to the practice of law. Ms. Adams Powell detailed the facts surrounding this case. (Tr. P. 477 lines 3-25. Tr. P. 478 1-25, Tr. P. 479 lines 1-6). 9. Ms. Adams Powell was retained by Joanne Sumrall Hill to represent her 7 daughter, Jamier Sumrall, in three criminal felony matters in Hennepin, Dakota, and Washington counties. Ms. Adams Powell met with Jamier Sumrall on June 22, 2017 and Joanne Sumrall Hill paid a cash deposit of$l,500 on June 23, 2017. A receipt for the $1,500 was provided. Ms. Sumrall Hill did not countersign the receipt. Ms. Adams Powell?s invoice details work done on Sumrall ?le. 10.The Suspension Order was issued on July 19, 2017. Pursuant to the Stipulation agreed to and signed by the Director and Ms. Adams Powell, Ms. Adams Powell?s suspension was effective on August 2, 2017. However, the Suspension Order was different and stated Ms. Adams Powell?s suspension was effective immediately. 1 1.Referee Madden testi?ed it is unusual for the court not to go with the agreement of the parties especially when both parties are represented by counsel. 12.0n August 1, 2017, Ms. Adams Powell appeared in the Bump matter before the Honorable Referee Mary E. Madden. Prior to going on the record, in chambers discussion took place and multiple dates were proposed for a trial and telephone conference. Ms. Longrie, Ms. Hariman, and Ms. Adams Powell shared their prospective availability. 13.Ms. Adams Powell was unavailable due to vacations and trials on the dates proposed by Referee Madden. Ms. Adams Powell provided the Director 8 t?lLeltt doetuuenration Veri ?xing and con?rming that she was in fact on vacation and set tin-r trial on or about the proposed dates. Ms. Adams Powell credibly testi?ed that she was unavailable on August 8. 2017. the. day before her ?ight, due. to previously scheduled appointments and errands required to prepare her son and herselfto go on vacation. 14.01} the record August 1. 2017. when asked ifshe looked at her calendar and if she was available on August 8, 2017, Ms. Adams Powell stated, did and I'm not available. 1 will have to try and ?nd someone to cover that.? This fact is tmdisputed and is verified in the Transcript of the August 1, 2017 hearing admitted into evidence. Ms. Adams Powell provided a response to the Director and testi?ed that the trials she was referring to on August 21, 2017, were the Diamond Reynolds trial then set for August 21, 2017 and the Diawain Adams in September 2017. 15. Despite Ms. Adams Powell tmavailability on August 8, 2017, Referee Madden set the tele?conference for August 8, 2017. 16. Ms. Longrie's client had substance abuse issues that were of concern and prohibited her from seeing the minor child. Ms. Adams Powell represented Mr. Bump in the OPP matter and Referee Madden granted Mr. Bump an OFP against the mother on behalf ofthe minor child and himself. The OFP order denied the mother access to the minor child and ordered her to abstain from 9 alcohol and illegal substances and submit to random testing and MN Monitoring. 17. Ms. Longrie testi?ed that her client (the mother) had positive UA's. She also testi?ed that the GAL. Ms. Hariman. was concerned about her client's substance abuse. The evidence veri?es that the delay in the case moving forward for Ms. Longrie?s client was her substance abuse. 18.The Court also rejects Ms. Longrie?s biased testimony that Ms. Adams Powell?s unavailability on August 8, 2017 hanned her client, and delayed the case, and that her client was confused as to whether the court order said her client was to abstain from alcohol. Ms. Longrie?s own testimony re?ects Mr. Bump?s concerns with Ms. Maze?s sobriety and the concerns with Ms. Maze?s sobriety, which led the Referee Madden joining in the recommendation for no visitation and to the suggestion of continued random testing. 19.0n August 1, 2017, Ms. Adams Powell mailed notices to her clients, the court, and opposing counsel as required by the suspension order via certi?ed mail return receipt. The letters were dated July 28, 2017. The Director admitted the letters addressed to Hennepin County District Court and Ms. Longrie together with the return receipts into evidence. Hennepin County District Court signed for Ms. Adams Powell?s letter on August 4, 2017 and Ms. Longrie signed 10 for Ms. Adams Powell?s letter on August 8, 2017. Prior to mailing the notices as required Ms. Adams Powell called her clients and informed them of her upcoming suspension. 20.Ms. Longrie eloquently testi?ed that she is very familiar with the certi?ed mail process, but on cross-examination she had extreme dif?culty explaining what the date stamp was and what it meant/signi?ed and was hesitant to say that her signature was on the document and that her signature indicated the date she picked up the letter. 21.No rule exists that required Ms. Adams Powell to disclose in open court or chambers that she was going to be suspended. Ms. Adams Powell provided notice of her suspension as required by the Suspension order via certi?ed mail return receipt. 22.However, the Board contends that Ms. Adams Powell should have disclosed her Suspension when she appeared before Referee Madden on August 1, 2017. Ms. Adams Powell did not disclose her suspension, nor was she required to by the order. The Court credits Ms. Adams Powell?s theory of not verbally disclosing her suspension to the suspension order that instructed Ms. Adams Powell to notice her clients, the court, and opposing counsel of her suspension in writing via certi?ed mail return receipt. 11 23.Ms. Adams Powell mailed her notices on August I, 2017 and that was all that was required. 24.Ms. Adams Powell placed everyone on notice in the August 7, 2017 email that she was not operating in her attorney capacity when she sent the email and speci?cally stated in the first line ?1 am suspended until September 16, 2017.? 25. On August 7, 2017, Ms. Adams Powell sent an email to the Referee Madden, Ms. Longrie, and the GAL Ms. Hariman informing them that she was ?suspended until September 16, 2017 and that she had attempted to get - telephone conference to no avail. Please someone to cover the August 8 advise?. MRPC Rule 5.8 permits a suspended attorney to engage with a third party in scheduling matters and sharing information. This is what occurred. Ms. Adams Powell testi?ed she was not operating in her attorney capacity when she sent the August 7th email. 26.An email discussion ensued regarding Ms. Adams Powell?s suspension. The August 7, 2017 email thread was admitted into evidence. In that email, Ms. Adams Powell stated that her suspension was public but the 12 Stipulation for Discipline was not and the Stipulation stated that her suspension was not effective until 14 days from the date of the suspension order, August 2, 2017. Therefore, she was authorized to practice law when she appeared before Referee Madden on August 1, 2017. Ms. Adams Powell testi?ed her 2017 suspension was the ?rst time she had ever been suspended and that she knew that her suspension was public and she believed that the Stipulation for Discipline was private. 27.As a part of Ms. Powell?s probation, she was required to cooperate with the Director. Prior to the Director approving a supervisor proposed by Ms. Adams Powell, the Director, namely Nicole Frank, requested that Ms. Adams Powell bring in three ?les: Benjamin Bump, Robert Walker, and Diamond Reynolds for review. This ?le review was not prompted by complaints ?led by Mr. Bump, Mr.Walker, or Ms. Reynolds. Ms. Adams Powell cooperated and brought in the ?les requested. 28.During the ?le review, Ms. Adams Powell was asked if the ?at fees were deposited into Ms. Adams Powell?s trust account. Ms. Frank asked to see the retainer agreements. Ms. Adams Powell testi?ed that she said ?Yea, I think so/I believe so I?ll have to check.? Nicole Frank testi?ed that Ms. Adams Powell said ?Yes? when asked if the ?at fees were deposited into her trust account. The evidence is not clear and convincing of what was said. 13 29. After the meeting, the Director requested veri?cation of the deposits and copies of Ms. Adams Powell?s ?at fee agreement for the Ben Bump and Robert Walker ?les by February 6, 2018 in a letter dated January 23, 2018. Ms. Adams Powell called Nicole Frank and advised her that she was preparing for a second-degree murder trial and advised her that the trial began January 29th, 2018 and was set to last for approximately two weeks. Ms. Adams Powell testi?ed that the trial began January 29, 2018 and ended February 6, 2018, for which she provided the MNCIS Register of Actions to con?rm. Ms. Adams Powell also testi?ed that she provided Ms. Frank with copies of the retainer agreements on February 6 as requested and advised she was not in possession of the deposit information and would provide it upon receipt. Ms. Adams Powell also advised Nicole Frank of a death in her family in March that required her to go out of town, her preparation for the MPRE, and the trial of Diamond Reynolds that began on March 26, 2018 via emails admitted into evidence. Nicole Frank then requested information be provided on March 30, 2018 and Ms. Adams Powell complied, which is con?rmed in the emails admitted into evidence by Ms. Adams Powell detailing communications between Nicole Frank and Ms. Adams Powell. There is no clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Adams Powell failed to cooperate with the Director. 30.After visiting her bank, Wells Fargo, Ms. Adams Powell advised the 14 Director that the money was deposited in her personal account and not her trust account. She also advised that Jeremy Stirewalt told her that this was due to bank error. Ms. Adams Powell provided copies of the deposit slips as requested and advised what was and what was not her handwriting. 31.Nicole Frank asked for something in writing to verify the bank error. Ms. Adams Powell testi?ed that she asked Mr. Stirewalt for something in writing and that he did not provide anything in writing. Ms. Adams Powell also testi?ed that she was shocked and really disappointed that Mr. Stirewalt would make that representation to her and then say that he did not say that. Mr. Stirewalt testi?ed on cross-examination that bank error could be an explanation as to how the deposit was made into Ms. Adams Powell?s trust account. However, on redirect from the Director Mr. Stirewalt said he did not tell Ms. Adams Powell that the mistake was due to bank error. There is no clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Adams Powell was dishonest in her representation to the Director that the deposits were made into her personal account due to bank error. 32. Ms. Nicole Frank instructed Ms. Adams Powell to change the language in her fee agreements. According to Ms. Frank, Ms. Adams Powell modi?ed agreements as instructed. Nicole Frank testi?ed that a ?bad fee agreement? is normally a technical violation and does not warrant a new 15 violation or an investigation. but because people with ?bad fee agreements? normally say they deposit the fees in their personal account. Ms. Frank believed Ms. Adams Powell was being dishonest. There is no clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Adams Powell was being dishonest, just the subjective belief of Nicole Frank who testi?ed she was new at her position andjust getting used to thejob. Ms. Frank?s decision to violate Ms. Adams Powell is opposed to the usual customary handling of a ?bad flat fee retainer.? 33.Ms. Adams Powell was not aware that cash payments required the countersignature of the client. Ms. Adams Powell testi?ed that she asked 30 attorneys about this rule and none of them were aware that cash payments require the countersignature of the client. 34. There is no clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Adams Powell knowingly made false representations to the court, the Director, or anyone else. Ms. Adams Powell reasonably relied on the Stipulation for Discipline that stated her suspension began 14 days from the date of the suspension order. Ms. Adams Powell also relied on the representations from Mr. Stirewalt a banker at her ?nancial institution. 35.Ms. Adams Powell did not delay the Bump case. The Court was awaiting demonstrated sobriety from Ms. Maze before parenting time or 16 Visitation was going to be granted. Trial was on August I, 2017 for . December 1 l? and December 12 The tele-conference was continued to August 28. 2017. Ms. Adams Powell had an attorney handle that for her. 36.Ms. Adams Powell credibly testified that she clearly knew the August tl . . - - 8 hearing was continued because she alerted the court Vla email on August 7 that she did not ?nd anyone to cover for her on August 8th. Ms. Adams Powell testified that she misspoke when she said the August 8?h hearing occurred in her deposition as she meant to say August Ms. Adams Powell also testi?ed that she was not sure if she reviewed letters written by her attorney to the Board. See the Director? transcript of Ms. Adams Powell?s deposition. There is no clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Adams Powell violated Rules 8.1(a) and 84(0) and MRPC. 37. On direct, Nicole Frank said her only communications with Powell were the few emails submitted by Director. On cross-examination and after being shown emails provided by Ms. Adams Powell Ms. Frank recalled more communication with Ms. Adams Powell, where Ms. Adams Powell advised Frank of being in felony attempted murder trial, a death in her family, that she was preparing and sitting for the MPRE, and beginning a trial that following Monday as to why she did not provide information requested. 1n the emails, Nicole Frank acknowledges Ms. Adams Powell?s explanations and grants her 17 extensions to provide the information. The emails prove that Ms. Adams Powell complied with the deadlines set forth and provided the requested information accordingly. On cross, Nicole Frank also admitted that she communicated with Ms. Adams Powell via phone but she did not keep good records at that time like she does now. There is convincing evidence that Ms. Adams Powell cooperated with the Director. 38. In her Deposition transcript Ms. Adams Powell said I believe so? when asked if she reviewed the letters from her attorney to the Board not ?Yes? as the Director alleges. 39.Ms. Adams Powell and Joanne Sumrall Hill agreed to a $1,000 refund. The payment arrangement was: two payments, one $500 before August 8 and the second $400 before the last day of September. Ms. Adams Powell paid $500 on August 6th and paid another $500 October 2, due to Joanne Sumrall being out of town on her honeymoon on September 30. This testimony is credited by text messages from Joanne Sumrall stating, will notify the Board I was paid in full.? Joanne Sumrall Hill?s testimony was not credible. She testi?ed on direct that she did not receive any money, then that she only received one payment. Moreover, Ms. Sumrall Hill testi?ed that she didn?t know what was given to her husband, that the texts say they came from her phone but it wasn?t hers, and that the voicemail transcript received into evidence was Doug it wasn?t her. 18 Signi?cantly. it wasn?t until Mr. Champion advised that he could play the voicemail that Joanne Sumrall Hill recalled the voicemail was her calling, Ms. Adams Powell. 40.Ms. Longrie, who represented Ms. Maze, the mother ofthe child in the Bump matter, testi?ed that she did not recall setting a trial date in chambers. Ms. Adams Powell?s testimony that a trial date of December 1 and December 12 was set in chambers on August 1, 2017 is credited here, that the Transcript of the August 1, 2017 hearing states on page 2 that the a trial date was set in chambers. 41 .The Board counters with an Appendix 1, Section II of Rule l.15(h) MRPC, which requires an attorney to have the client countersign receipts for cash payments. There was no testimony presented by the Director that Ms. Adams Powell saw that Appendix, or was aware of it. Ms. Adams Powell did testify that she asked other attorneys whether they had their clients countersign receipts for cash payments or were aware of this rule in the Appendix and none of them were aware of it or adhered to it. and the Court ?nds that this rule goes against the spirit of providing a receipt, which is to document the file and provide the client with a copy of payment received. 42. Since the rules were used here as a criminal sanction, this Court 19 employs. as it must. the doctrine rule ol?lenity. and linds that MRPC Rule 5.8 governs this case. The ambiguity between Rule 5.8's specilic definition of what a suspended attorney can do. and the MRPC Rule 3.4 and carte blanche prohibition is resolved in favor ost. Adams Powell. Referee Madden's preference for not hearing Ms. Longrie?s Motion for Temporary Relief on behalf of her client and scheduling a telephone conference on August 8, 2017 is tempered against her discretion to control over the courtroom and those within it. While Ms. Adams Powell could have argued the Motion on August 1, 2017, the Court likewise could have denied Ms. Longrie?s Motion based on the information readily available from previous court orders, Ms. Maze?s violation(s) of Referee Madden?s prior order for random testing, and the basis for the OFF granted to Mr. Bump. Referee Madden had the power and authority to hear Ms. Longrie?s Motion on August 1, 2017. 43. Given the two con?icting points of view Ms. Adams Powell's View that she did not engage in the unauthorized practice of law; did not knowingly make false statements; did not fail to maintain proper records and Referee Madden?s Ms. Longrie?s, and the Director?s view that Ms. Adams Powell knowingly did all of the above respectively and without resolving the dispute in favor of either, the Board has not met the clear and convincing standard of proof than an ethical violation occurred. 20 44. The Board claims Ms. Adams Powell provided false statements to Referee Madden; false statements to the Director that the fees were deposited into her trust account: that the August 8th telephone conference occurred: and that the fees were deposited into her personal account due to bank error. This Court credits Ms. Adams Powell's proof ofmitigation. She produced her ?ight itinerary verifying her vacation August 9-August 13. She also provided testimony that she had previously scheduled appointment and errands that included laundry and packing for her son and her in preparation to go out of town on August 8, 2017. Ms. Adams Powell also provided testimony regarding her trials that were set on dates proposed by Referee Madden; a series of email communication with Nicole Frank, which provides proof of Ms. Adams Powell?s cooperation with the Director?s requests together with explanations for the delay in providing information; and that she reasonably relied on the explanation offered by the Wells Fargo banker as to why the fees were deposited into her personal account. Ms. Adams Powell produced receipts and informed the Director that all of the handwriting was not hers. She also produced a Register of Actions and testimony documenting trials she was in as explained to Nicole Frank. 45. Most importantly, Ms. Adams Powell produced the Stipulation for Discipline which states her suspension was effective 14-days from the date of the suspension order. The Court is aware of the confusion concerning the ?immediately? language in the Suspension Order and the ?effective l4-days 21 from the date ofthe suspension order" language in the Stipulation for Discipline as agreed between Ms. Adams Powell and the Director, and credits Ms. Adams Powell's testimony and exhibits indicating her good faith belief that she was authorized to practice law until August 2, 2017; her good faith belief that she could rely on the representation by Mr. Stirewalt, a Wells Fargo banker, that the fees were deposited into her personal account due to bank error; her good faith belief that she had complied with the Rules that require a receipt for payment to be provided; her good faith belief that she could rely on her attorney?s representation that she could rely on the Stipulation for Discipline; and her good faith belief that she was only to notice clients, the Court, and opposing counsel via written letter via certified mail return receipt. The facts suggest the critical difference between an intentional rule and or order violation and an arguable negligence in adhering to the rules and/or order. There is no clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Adams Powell violated Rules 4.1, and 8.4(c) and MRPC. 46. Mr. Bump, Mr. Walker, Ms. Reynolds, nor Jamier Sumrall ?led a complaint against Ms. Adams Powell. None of them testified. Mr. Bump, Mr. Walker, and Ms. Reynolds elected to retain Ms. Adams Powell and not seek other counsel during her suspension. 47. Ms. Adams Powell did not attend any hearings, represent any clients, or engage in the practice of law after August 1, 2017. All of Ms. Adams Powell?s actions after August 1, 2017 were directly in line with her good faith 22 belicl?that suspension began August 2. 2017 and ended September 16, 2017. 48. The Board questions, Ms. Adams Powell?s honesty, without suf?cient basis. No clear and convincing evidence exists to prove that Ms. Adams Powell was or is dishonest. 49. The Board criticizes her statements to Referee Madden and the Director. 50. Ms. Adams Powell testi?ed as to her good faith belief in the factual basis of her claims. She testi?ed that her statements, in her belief, were also true. While there is a difference in perspective as to what should or should not have been said to Referee Madden and the Director, her testimony offers sufficient rebuttal to that of Referee Madden, attorney Longrie, Mr. Stirewalt, Nicole Frank, and Joanne Sumrall. Clear and convincing evidence has not been shown otherwise. 51. To the extent several of the comments were made in reliance upon Mr. Stirewalt?s representations to her, Ms. Adams Powell could do so as Mr. Stirewalt was a professional and operating in his professional capacity of a banker when he made the representations to Ms. Adams Powell as an explanation as to what occurred with her account. However, in retrospect Ms. Adams Powell accepts responsibility for not making sure that the bank teller put the money in the correct account. 23 52. Concerning the Sumrall matter, the Court credits Ms. Adams Powell?s unrebutted testimony that her client was amier Sumrall Hill and not Joanne Sumrall Hill, that the $1,000 refund was agreed upon by Joanne Sumrall; that $500 was paid to Douglas Hill on August 8, 2017; that the ?nal payment of $500 was paid to Douglas Hill by Joanne Sumrall Hill?s instruction on October 2 upon Joanne?s return to Minnesota, and that Joanne Sumrall Hill was paid in full pursuant to the agreed upon refund amount; which was veri?ed by Ms. Adams Powell?s exhibits (Sumrall voicemail transcript and Sumrall text messages) despite Joanne Sumrall Hill?s testimony that the voicemail was a text with her husband, Doug Hill, that the text messages were from her phone but it wasn?t her, and that Ms. Adams Powell only refunded $500. ARGUMENT A. The Record Does Not Support the Referee?s Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law. Rule 14(e), RLPR, requires that a party ordering a transcript "shall speci?/ in the initial brief to the Court the referee's ?ndings of fact, conclusions and recommendations that are disputed." Rule 14(e), RLPR. Respondent disputes the referee?s ?ndings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations for discipline as follows: Findings ofFact: 3,6,11,12,13,14,17 a-c, 18a and b, and 51. Conclusions ofLaw: 2,4,5,6,8,11,12,13,14,15,16, and 17. 24 Recommendation for Discipline: Respondent disputes the recommendations in their entirety. Speci?cally, recommendations 2-4e. The referee failed to consider any relevant facts set forth on the record that were favorable to Respondent. Therefore, his inferences are not reasonable, but rather skewed as follows: 1. The referee concluded that a possible trial was discussed in the Bump matter on August 1, 2017, when in fact, the record shows that a trial was in fact set. Referee Madden testi?ed that for the case to move forward ?we scheduled a trial for December.? (Tr. P. 31 lines 9-10). Madden further testi?ed that the trial date was scheduled for December 11th and December 2017. (Tr. P. 50 lines 19-22.) The referee concluded that Respondent agreed to scheduling the August 8lh telephone conference and assured Referee Madden that she would ?nd an attorney to attend in her place. However, the record shows that Referee Madden testi?ed ?Ms. Powell indicated that she would try to ?nd someone to cover for her if she was not able to made the call and so we scheduled it for one week later at 4:00 pm. in the afternoon.? (Tr. P.33, lines 5-9 and Tr. P. 71, lines 5-13). The record does not show that Respondent agreed to the scheduling ofthe August 8, 2017 hearing. Speci?cally, Referee Madden testi?ed that she scheduled the August 8?h hearing knowing Respondent was not available but would try to ?nd someone to cover if she was not available. (Tr. P. 109; lines 6-15). Respondent put forth testimony of her good faith belief that she was authorized to practice and represent Ms. Sumrall and Mr. Bump. The record shows that Referee Madden testi?ed that the Suspension Order and the Stipulation for Discipline appear to be inconsistent (Tr. P.44, line 3). The referee concluded that Respondent admitted to making false misrepresentations in her response to the Director when she said she didn?t believe her suspension was for public consumption. This was taken out of context. The Director?s question was very speci?c. The Director was asking Respondent speci?cally about disclosing the suspension to Madden at the hearing on August 1, 2017 not in general. Signi?cantly, the record shows that Respondent testi?ed 25 that she was obviously aware that her suspension was public, but was not aware of any obligation or rule that required her to disclose her suspension at the August 1, 2017 hearing in open court or in chambers. Respondent was aware that she was obligated to disclose her suspension in writing to the courts, her clients, and opposing counsel via certi?ed mail return receipt, as she did on August 1, 2017. The record shows that Respondent in fact noti?ed Referee Madden and Ms. Longrie in writing and via certi?ed mail receipt as required and that letter was received in the Hennepin County Mail Center on August 4, 2017 and August 7th accordingly (by letter dated July 28, 2017 mailed August 1, 2017). (Ex. 13, Tr. P.65, lines 10-23 and Ex. 14, Tr. P. 66, lines 23-25, Tr. P. 67, lines 1-23; Tr. P. 68, lines 8-24). . The referee concluded that Referee Madden?s testimony was credible. However, the record shows that Madden is named in a federal lawsuit containing 94 allegations involving Madden making a misrepresentation in a memorandum of law in a court proceeding. (Tr. P. 87; lines 23-25. P. 88; lines 1-16). The record further shows that the heart of those allegations go to whether Madden was being honest or dishonest. (Tr. P. 88; lines 17-20). Signi?cantly, Referee Madden testi?ed that she submitted a memorandum then stated she and her judicial colleagues are represented by the Attorney General?s of?ce and they have ?led taken care of ?ling all the documents. (Tr. P. 93, lines 15-24). Most importantly, when asked if she would agree that the Attorney General?s Of?ce cannot submit anything on behalf of a client that isn?t signed off on by the client she responded would disagree with that.? (Tr. P. 93 line 25, P. 94: lines Referee Madden also testi?ed that the August 1, 2017 hearing took place in the morning. However, the record shows that the August 1, 2017 hearing took place at 1:30 pm. (Ex. 2, Tr. P. 122; lines 17?25, Tr. P. 123; lines 1-10). Madden explained that when she testi?ed earlier that the hearing was the morning of August 1, 2017 that she misspoke, she was trying to be dishonest she made an error, an honest mistake based on her recollection. (Tr. P. 123; lines 11?25 and Tr. P. 124 lines 1-7). . The referee concluded that Madden, Longrie, and Respondent testi?ed the same. However, the record shows otherwise. . Longrie testi?ed that there was not a trial date set on August 1, 2017. (Tr. P. 162 lines 2-8). Not until after Longrie was shown Ex. 26 4 (Tr. Ofthe August 1, 2017 hearing) did she testify that a trial date was set for December 1 1 and 12m. (Tr. P. 162 lines 9-25, Tr. P. 163; lines 1-22). When asked if she misspoke, Longrie testified, don?t know ifl testi?ed that there wasn?t a trial date set. 1 don?t recall. However, the record clearly shows she in fact said no trial date was set on August 1, 2017 (Tr. P. 162 lines 2-8). 8. The referee concluded Ms. Adams Powell made false misrepresentations to the Director that the deposit in her personal account was due to bank error. The banker (Jeremy Stirewalt) testi?ed that he has known for several years and Respondent always appeared to be upright and never asked him to compromise your integrity as a banker. (Tr. P. 225; lines 15-25). Moreover, the banker testi?ed that a teller could not af?rm or deny that there was a bank error. (Tr. P. 250 lines 17-21). The banker also testi?ed that he did a lot of research for Respondent and spent couple of hours pulling statements and stufflike that. (Tr. P. 250 lines 7-14). However, his testimony was self-serving as he recently received a promotion. The banker also testi?ed that the customer may ?ll out the top and the teller can complete the deposit slip and that mistakes happen. (Tr. P. 235 lines 14-16, Tr. 228 lines 12-24, Tr. P. 229 lines 3-15). The banker also testi?ed that the reason he couldn?t provide the letter was not that what she articulated (due to bank error) was untrue its just that he would have a dif?cult time saying for certain exactly what happened because many different scenarios that could have occurred. (Tr. P. 241 lines 6-12) 9. The referee concluded that Respondent made misrepresentations to Nicole Frank that the Bump and Walker deposits were deposited into her trust account due to bank error. However, the record shows that Ms. Frank testi?ed that she believed Respondent?s answers to her requests were odd (Tr. P. 277 lines 22-25, Tr. P. 278 lines Tr. P. 282 lines 17-25, Tr. P. 283 lines 1-4). This exhibits a subjective belief based on no supporting evidence or proof of dishonesty by Ms. Adams Powell. 10.The referee also concluded that Respondent failed to cooperate with the Director?s investigation. However, the record shows that Nicole Frank testi?ed only to the self-serving communications with Respondent and it wasn?t until cross-examination that she was forthcoming with additional email correspondence received from Respondent explaining the delay. Speci?cally, Respondent offered 27 Ex. 108 to the Court because the Director conveniently left out these emails to Nicole Frank and Nicole Frank did not testify to these communications with Ms. Adams Powell (Tr. P. 317 lines 9-25) (Tr. P. 512 lines 19-25, Tr. P. 513 lines 1-25, Tr. P. 514 lines 1-25, Tr. P. 515 lines 1-25, P. 516 lines 1-25, P. 517 lines 1-25) advising her of a felony murder trial with Justin Reynolds that began January 30, 2018 and ending either February 6?h or February 8?h according to MNCIS BX. 107, Tr. P. 510 line 25, Tr. P. 511 lines 1-25) and Diamond Reynolds felony trial that began March 26, 2018 and ended March 30, 2018, but was initially set for August 21, 2017 (Tr. P. 486 lines 7-25) and a death in her family out of state, and her studying and sitting for the MPRE (Tr. P. 301 lines 13-25, Tr. P. 1- 1 1) (Tr. P. 312 line 25, Tr. P. 313 lines 1-25, Tr. P. 314 lines 1-17). Ms. Adams Powell specifically testi?ed absolutely did cooperate. I provided explanations for the delays, ifyou will, in my responses to her requests either by phone?we had multiple conversations by phone. And we also had several email exchanges that were not included in sic the Director?s exhibits) that Ms. Frank did not testify to. But I did cooperate. I made the request for the documented information that she asked me for. I said that when I received it 1 would give it to her. I let her know that I was in trial in January, Which, I was, with Justin Reynolds. And that trial was maybe a little over a week. I would have to look at MNCIS. And in March again when she made some more requests, I let her know that I had suffered a loss ofa very close family member and I was going out of town and I requested that we speak when I come back. And she said okay. I also let her know that I was sitting for the MPRE, which was a requirement in my suspension that 1 take the MPRE. And I also let her know that I had a criminaljury trial coming up. And that was with Diamond Reynolds in March as well. So the things I would have changed (re Nicole Frank?s testimony surrounding cooperation) would have been to provide the complete detail ofwhat occurred. (Tr. P. 509 lines8-25, T. P. 510 lines 1-19). Ms. Adams Powell went on to testify, ?Everything they asked me 1 provided. Ifl was not able to provide it, I let them know that 1 could not provide it and why. And when 1 received the information, I provided it.? (Tr. P. 518 lines 1-4). 1 1.The referee concluded that Respondent harmed the public and the profession. However, the record shows that no complaints were 28 filed by Bump or Walker or Jamier Sumrall. Ms. Hill testified, don?t know that it made me feel any way about thejuclicial system per se. 1 mean Karlowba doesn?t represent the entirejudicial system.? (Tr. P. 328 lines 24-25; 329 lines 12.The referee concluded that Respondent knowingly made false representations to the Director about the Bump and Walker deposits. When Ms. Adams Powell was asked about Ms. Frank?s testimony that she was being dishonest, Ms. Adams Powell testified, was very taken aback by that, because 1 just believe when you make that statement that?s a very strong statement. And I made a statement. I found out that that was not the ?well, I said the yeah, I did. 1 don?t know. I have to check. And I checked. And then I told them that. I was forthcoming with the information. I didn?t even try to hide or conceal anything. So I?m not sure why the Board has elected to portray me as being dishonest. (Tr. P. 518 lines 9-25). Ms. Adams Powell also testified about her conversations with the Wells Fargo banker, Jeremy Stirewalt. She testi?ed, went to the bank on several occasions and obtained information. 1 met with Mr. Stirewalt. I sat down at his desk. We spent a long time together pulling this information, speci?cally the deposit slips that were shown to hi and were discussed during his testimony, he?I?m not the banker, but I asked him, like, how could this happen. So he did some research on his computer or whatever and then said, ?Oh, well, it could be bank error. That?s what he said to me. And that was the only reason why 1 presented that to the Board. (Tr. P. 519 lines 13-25, Tr. 520 lines 1-8). When asked if she heard Mr. Stirewalt testify that he did not say that to her, Ms. Adams Powell testified, ?1 did. And I was very shocked, but more so disappointed that he would tell me that. And knowing?because when he told me that, knowing that I, or course, would rely on what he told me as being my banker, right, and make that representation to whomever and then after I ask him for veri?cation of the bank error in writing then to change his position, I was very disappointed that he would say that.? (Tr. P. 520 lines 9-22). l3.The referee also concluded that Respondent intentionally ignored the court?s order. However, Respondent testified that 2017 was the first time she had ever dealt with a suspension and she relied on her lawyer?s representation that she had 14 days from the date of thin suspension order. Specifically, Ms. Adams Powell testified that the 29 Stipulation with the Board the parties agreed to her suspension being effective 14 days from the date ofthe suspension order. (Tr. P. 479 lines 11-25). Ms. Adams Powell also testi?ed that she had a conversation with her attorney as it related to the stipulation agreement versus the Supreme Court Order because they were inconsistent and she didn?t want to leave her clients high and dry or without representation. (Tr. P. 480 lines 1-12). 14.The referee concluded that Respondent refused to acknowledge misconduct. However, the record shows that Respondent exstensively acknowledged misconduct. Ms. Adams Powell testi?ed, acknowledged that there were some things that I could have done differently. I have acknowledged that.? (Tr. P. 473 lines 12-14). She further testi?ed as to what she could have done differently. Speci?cally, Ms. Adams Powell testi?ed, could have told thejudge that I was suspended. That I was going to be suspended on August Regarding the August 7th email, I could have because I?m a solo practioner I?m the only one that cold contact the court. But looking at the petition and from what I know now, I probably should not have done that. Probably should not have done that.? (Tr. P. 473 lines 15-25, Tr. P. 474 line 1). Ms. Adams Powell went on to testify ?With regards to the trust account and the ?at fee retainers. I have made the correction to my retainer and I have completely reformed my bookkeeping. I have instituted new of?ce procedures and measures to make sure that I am compliant with the rules that I am now aware of.? (Tr. P. 474 lines 2-10). ?With regard to the receipt countersigning, I never knew. Any maybe this is not appropriate, but I talked to, like 30 attorneys and none of them know that you are supposed to countersign a receipt for cash. I didn?t know that, I, you know, never had the opportunity to look or review, you know, an appendix or an amendment of whatever to a rule, so I wasn?t aware of that. So now that I know that, I have now implemented that practice. And if my clients give me cash, I absolutely get a countersigning.? (Tr. P. 474 lines 1 1-23). Additionally, Ms. Adams Powell testi?ed regarding the August 8th e-mail that ?In hindsight, I probably should have made a disclaimer like I did in the other e-mail saying, you know, I?m suspended or whatever and then sent that so that is was clear or that it could not be interpreted that I was doing that in the capacity as his attorney.? (Tr. P. 501 lines 10-15.) 30 15.The referee concluded that Respondent exhibited no remorse. However. she began crying on the record and expressed remorse. lo.The referee concluded that Respondents conduct at trial was an aggravating factor because she displayed a lack of candor to the court. However, the referee failed to specifically articulate how Respondent displayed a lack of candor. The referee did not provide one example ofa lack of candor or any speci?c misrepresentations at trial. 17.The referee concluded that Respondent?s August 7?h and August 8th emails constituted the unauthorized practice of law. However, MRCP Rule 5.8 allows a suspended attorney to engage in scheduling matters and sharing information. Respondent testified that she started the August 7th email by saying she was suspended and as such could not be operating in the capacity of Mr. Bump?s attorney. B. The Referee?s Recommended Discipline Is Punitive. a. Respondent?s Misconduct Does Not Warrant the Recommended When determining the appropriate level of discipline, the court considers four factors: (1) the nature of the misconduct; (2) the cumulative weight of the disciplinary violations; (3) the harm to the public; and (4) the harm to the legal profession. In re Torgerson, 870 at 614. The purposes of lawyer discipline are "to protect the public, to safeguard the administration of justice, and to determine potential future misconduct." In re Stanbury, 561 507, 512 (Minn. 1997). "Significant weight? is accorded the referee's recommendation for discipline, although the court is the ?sole arbiter of the discipline to be imposed," In re Albrecht, 779 530, 540 (Minn. 2010) (internal quotations omitted). Proven aggravating and mitigating factors are both relevant to the appropriate discipline, as are prior similar cases. 10?. at 540. However, while prior disciplinary decisions guide the Court in determining an appropriate sanction, ultimately discipline must be based on the unique facts of each case. 31 In re (irigsln?. 815 836, 844 (Minn. 2012). 1. Nature of Misconduct. a) 13) Unauthorized practice of law: On August 1, 2017, Ms. Adams Powell reasonably relied on the Stipulation for Discipline which stated her suspension began l4-days from the suspension order when she appeared, as she believed her suspension began on August 2, 2107. On August 7, 2017. Ms. Adams Powell reasonably relied on MRCP Rule 5.8 whens he exchanged information with the court and parties in the Bump matter. Knowingly made false statements: On August 1, 2017, Ms. Adams Powell reasonably relied on the Stipulation for Discipline which stated her suspension began 14-days from the suspension order when she appeared, as she believed her suspension began on August 2, 2107. Ms. Adams Powell also reasonably relied on the suspension order that stated notice of her suspension was to be made to the court, clients, and Opposing counsel in writing via certi?ed mail return receipt when she did not disclose her suspension in court on August 1, 2017. Ms. Adams Powell reasonably relied on Mr. Stirewalt?s representation to her when she told the Director that the money was deposited in her bank account due to bank error. 32 However. in retrospect Ms. Adams Powell accepts responsibility for not making sure that the bank teller put the money in the correct account. Ms. Adams Powell misspoke when she said that the August 8th tele-conference occurred she meant to say that the August 28th tele-conference occurred. Ms. Adams Powell was clear that the August 8th tele?conference did not occur because she noti?ed the parties that she did not have anyone to cover for her on th August 8 . Failure to maintain proper records and safekeeping property: Ms. Adams Powell modi?ed her fee agreements as instructed by Nicole Frank. Ms. Adams Powell provided itemized billing statements to the Director that prove that she earned all the fees when they were deposited into her personal bank account. The Director admitted into evidence the Bump and Walker Powell Law Of?ce itemized invoices for services provided on those ?les. d) Failure to provide proper receipt for cash payment: Ms. Adams Powell provided a receipt, but was unaware of Appendix 1, Section II of Rule which requires a countersignature by the client on receipts for cash payments. Ms. Adams Powell testi?ed that she has asked other attorneys about this rule and none of them were aware of it or utilize it. Ms. Adams Powell upheld the spirit of the rule, which is to provide the client a cow of payment, made and maintain bookkeeping for her ?le regarding payments made on the ?le. 33 2. Weight of Respondent's Misconduct is Not Substantial. When assessing the cumulative weight of violations, the Court distinguishes ?a brief lapse in judgment or a single, isolated incident? of misconduct from "multiple instances of misconduct occurring over a substantial amount of time." In re Murrin, 821 195, 208 (Minn. 2012) (citation omitted) (internal quotations omitted). The unauthorized practice of law rule violations came from a single ill-advised action, which constitutes brief lapses judgment. While on probation, Respondent?s fee retainers were a technical violation that would not normally warrant any further investigation but for Nicole ranke?s subjective belief that she believed Respondent to be dishonest about representations made to her by the Wells Fargo banker. These brief lapses in judgment do not warrant the recommended discipline. Additionally, the cumulative weight of respondent's misconduct does not warrant inde?nite suspension or a Rule 18. Respondent?s prior private admonitions were 12 and 3 years ago. Moreover, Respondent testi?ed that the matters in the private admonishments were from files she inherited while at her previous law firm. Respondent completed her 45-day suspension and 2 year probation, paid her fine, and passed the MPRE as required for reinstatement as well as satisfied the other requirements as outlined. Respondent believes the appropriate sanction is a 60-day suspension. 34 3. Not Cause Harm to the Public_or_the Legal Profession. Respondent?s misconduct did not undermine the public con?dence in the legal system. Unauthorized practice of law: Ms. Adams Powell?s August 1, 2017 appearance was an isolated incident that occurred in Referee Madden?s chambers/courtroom. The public nor the legal profession was harmed. Ms. Adams Powell reasonably relied on the Stipulation for Discipline that stated her suspension was effective 14-days from the date of the suspension order: August 2, 2017. The August 7, 2017 email was an isolated incident that occurred in an email chain involving only the parties to the Bump matter. Ms. Adams Powell relied on MRPC 5.8, which authorizes suspended attorneys to share information with third parties when she shared the information in that August 7, 2017 email. False statements: Ms. Adams Powell?s statements to Referee Madden and the Director were a result of the isolated incident that occurred on August 1, 2017. The statements to the Director about the bank deposits were also an isolated incident that only involved the Director/Board. Neither the public nor the legal profession was harmed as Ms. Adams Powell merely relayed what she was told by Mr. Stirewalt. However, in retrospect Ms. Adams Powell accepts responsibility for not making sure that the bank teller put the money 35 in the correct account. Failure to maintain proper books safekeeping property: Nicole Frank requested investigation into these matters, although she testi?ed these were technical violations that would not normally warrant a new violation or an investigation by the Board. Failure to provide proper receipt for cash payment: Ms. Adams Powell provided a receipt, but was unaware of Appendix 1, Section II of Rule which requires a countersignature by the client on receipts for cash payments. Ms. Adams Powell testi?ed that she has asked other attorneys about this rule and none of them were aware of it or utilize it. Ms. Adams Powell upheld the spirit ofthe rule, which is to provide the client a copy of payment, made and maintain bookkeeping for her ?le regarding payments made on the ?le. None of Ms. Adams Powell?s clients ?led a Complaint with the Board against her or testi?ed in this matter against her. These were isolated incidents that did not harm the public or the legal profession. However, Ms. Hill, when asked how her experience with Respondent made her feel in terms ofthe judicial process and hiring an attorney, Ms. Hill testi?ed don?t know that it made me feel any way about thejudicial system per se. 1 mean, Karlowba doesn?t represent the entire judicial system.? (Tr. P. 329 lines 2-5). 36 4- IILC Noted nggrAggravating Factors and Mitigating Factors. b. Ms. Adams Powell Accepted Responsibility, Demonstrated What She Changed to Prevent Similar Acts in the Future, and Showed Remorse. Respondent acknowledged that she made mistakes and said she would have done things differently. Respondent also noted on the record that she has engaged different bookkeeping practices; improved her trust account handling; and has modified all retainer agreements to be in compliance with the rules. She also noted that she now has experienced attorney mentors. Moreover, Respondent clearly showed remorse for her actions when she cried in open court and told the court she should have done things differently. 0. Ms. Adams Powell?s Community Service Was Not Considered a Mitigating Factor. Ms. Adams Powell is well known in the community and prides herself in servicing the African-American community. Her mission has always been to provide affordable legal services to clients who otherwise would not be able to afford it. Ms. Adams Powell brings great value to the legal profession as a woman of color to a profession that is not diverse. Only 4 percent of lawyers in this country are black. 37 The recommended sanction is punitive. The lack ofclear and convincing evidence that Respondent knowingly made false representations or failed to follow the court order lessens the severity of Respondent?s misconduct. Additionally, the lapses injudgment of Respondent were an isolated incidents not a continuum of misconduct. Respondent accepts responsibility for her actions and believes that a 60- day suspension is appropriate as she has been on probation for 2 years in addition to her previous 45-day suspension. CONCLUSION Ms. Adams Powell would like to apologize for her lapses in Judgment in this case and the ones in the past. As a young sole practioner, Ms. Adams Powell admits that she has lacked good mentorship. This has been a learning experience for her and she thanks the Director for educating her about the rules and requirements that she did not previously know about. Ms. Adams Powell has also taken steps to secure a bookkeeper/account to regulate her accounting practices to keep this from happening in the future. Ms. Adams Powell now knows how to write an effective (compliant) ?at fee retainer agreement. Ms. Adams Powell promises to take advantage of the guidance the Director can provide and will seek advice in the future when there is something that she is not sure about. For example, if there is a discrepancy. However, Ms. Adams Powell has learned her lesson and will not make these 38 mistakes in the future. Based on the foregoing, Respondent respectfully requests that the Court review this matter de novo as the ?ndings and conclusions and recommendations for discipline of the referee are not supported in the record, and impose a period of suspension of sixty days. Ms. Adams Powell?s highly stressful personal life stressors surrounding facilitating the care of her mother with breast cancer were ignored as a mitigating factor. Ms. Adams Powell?s mother was diagnosed with breast cancer and was undergoing chemotherapy, radiation, and multiple surgeries during the time period in question as well as the time period in the 2016 Petition. As her eldest child, Ms. Adams Powell facilitated her care and provided emotional support. She had a lot on her plate, helping her mother required her to travel from Minnesota to Illinois, manage her practice and calendar (which required continuing hearings and other matters), and parent her son alone. This was a very stressful and traumatic experience for Ms. Adams Powell, her and her mother are very close. Ms. Adams Powell?s judgment may have been compromised and she may have made mistakes but any wrongful actions were not intentional. 39 Dated: November 13, 2019 40 Respectfully submitted, Bobby Joe Champion Bobby Joe Champion Attorney at Law 1501 Hall Curve Minneapolis, MN 55411 Telephone: (612) 518-8870 Fax: (612) 521-3405 CERTIFICATION OF BRIEF LENGTH I hereby certify that this brief conforms to the requirements as set forth in Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 132.01. The length of the brief is 9,668 words. The brief was prepared using Microsoft Word 2011. The brief contains 14-point Times New Roman font. Dated: November 13, 2019 Respectfully submitted, Bobby Joe Champion Bobby Joe Champion(0262614) Attorney at Law 1501 Hall Curve Minneapolis, 5541 1 Telephone: (612) 518-8870 Fax: (612) 521-3405 41