# Appendix — In re Matter of N. P. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385017_0271%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1985 - **Citation:** 474 U.S. 976 ## Text 7 Supreme Court, U.S. 8 5 ~4 Y 7 2k. & No. SEP 14 1985 | 1OL, JR, IN THE Supreme Court of the Gnited States OCTOBER TERM, 1985 In Re Charges of Unprofessional Conduct Against N.P.. Appellant. APPENDIX PATRICK J. FOLEY 608 Building, Suite 565 608-2nd Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 339-4511 Attorney for Appellant RONALD I. MESHBESHER JACK NORDBY 1616 Park Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55404 (612) 339-9121 FRANCES §S.P. LI 608-2nd Avenue South, Suite 565 Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 339-4511 Of Counsel for Appellant 1985—Northwest Brief Printing Co., 3010 2nd St. No., Minneapolis 55411—588-7506 ~ BEST AVAILABLE COPY —s ete ue APPENDIX INDEX Page Minnesota Supreme Court Decision January 25, 1985 A-1 Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board Charges EE Sick ve ch seccesrcrdease A-20 Notice of Pre-Hearing Meeting ................. A-32 Notice of Panel Assignment ...................- A-33 State Court Order Denying Petition for Re-Hearing, EE aia cb. G bh oe oan o'4 8 KOA A-34 Notice of Appeal to United States Supreme Court. gS Se ee rere Terre «|| Peaeee A-35 State Court Order Denying Stay, March 8, 1985 ....A-36 Minnesota Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsi- ree ee ee A-37 Minnesota Code of Professional Responsibility ..... A-47 Minnesota Court Order Promulgating Rules of Profes- sional Conduct and Repealing Code of Professional Responsibility, June 3, 1985, Effective September De ere ee CU Na ous gies bk ah se A-54 Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct. Effective ee a ss wwe 6a ew ew A-55 Affidavit of Stephen S. Eckman, attached to Charges I as Soni i wig eon boca Pe a ee ks A-64 Affidavit of John Michael Egan, attached to Charges a ois A 968 eo Gk 400 8 w0 4 A-67_ A-l APPENDIX EXHIBIT C Supreme Court Opinion, January 25, 1985 STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT C4-84-981, C0-84-1223 Supreme Court Per Curiam Took no part, Coyne, J. Ir re Charges of Unprofessional Cenduct against N.P. Endorsed Filed January 25. 1985 Wayne Tschimperle Clerk of Appellate Courts Heard, considered, and decided by the court en banc OPINION PER CURIAM. This case involves two petitions by attorney N. P. (pe- titioner) for a writ of prohibition, writ of mandamus, or other relief, one restraining the Director of the Lawyers - Professional Responsibility Board (director) from enforc- ing Rule 25, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsi- bility. and ordering him to dismiss or limit his disciplinary -nvestigation of petitioner and the second ordering the director to revise the charges issued against petitioner and A-2 dismiss those based upon DR 1-102, DR 2-203, DR 5-105, and DR 5-106 of the Minnesota Code of Professional Re- sponsibility. These petitions are considered together for »urposes of this opinion. : The facts that form the basis of each case are simila and involve legal manuevering of a kind that has resulted in unusually protracted judicial proceedings. In July 1979, the director began a disciplinary investigation of petitioner in response to a letter from a Superior, Wisconsin, physician charging that petitioner’s firm has “flagrantly solicited la- dies who have had Dalkon shields (sic) inserted for birth >ontrcl over the past ten years and [has] wrought emo- ticnal havoc upon them, [Members of the firm] have flagrantly suggested that they could obtain a cash settle- ment from Robins Drug Company * * *.™ This complaint was dismissed on September 28, 1979, with a finding of no unethical conduct. The director subsequently discovered evidence to substantiate the complaint, including evidence that petitioner had allegedly falsified in connection with the original investigation. Accordingly, on May 6, 1980, the director informed petitioner that the matter was tu be reopened. During 1980, 1981, and 1982, successive grand juries conducted detailed investigations of alleged wrongdoings b: petitioner, culminating in his February 16, 1982, in- Jictment in federal district court for mail fraud. Shortiy thereafter, the director dismissed two additional com- plaints involving petitioner’s activities: on April 6, 1982, "This case does not involve the merits of the celebrated issues concern- ing the liability of the A. H. Robins Company with respect to the Dalkon Shield intrauterine device but involves, rather, charges of overreaching by an attorney in undertaking to obtain a share of the profits from such litigation. . A-3 a complaint alleging that petitioner had refused to turn over the contents of a client file to a successor attorney and on June 3, 1982, a complaint alleging that petitioner had refused to turn over a client file after representation. Both dismissals were limited to the specific complaints and are unrelated to the matter currently at issue. Following petitioner’s indictment, the director staved investigation of the original complaint, primarily to avoid duplicating the trial court’s efforts and to conserve the limited resources of his office. Petitioner was tried before } Manner of recording. Proceedings at a Panel A-45 hearing or deposition may be recorded by sound record- ing or audio-video recording if the notification thereof so specifies. A party may nevertheless arrange for steno- graphic recording at his own expense. (n) Panel chairman authority. Requests or disputes arising under this Rule before the Panel hearing com- mences may be determined by the Panel chairman or vice-chairman. For good cause shown, the Panel chairman or vice-chairman may shorten or enlarge time periods for d'scovery under this Rule. RULE 20. CONFIDENTIALITY: EXPUNCTION (a) General rule. The files, records, and proceedings ot the District Committees, the Board, and the Director, as. they may relate to or arise out of any complaint or charge of unprofessional conduct against or investigation o1 a lawyer, shall be deemed confidential and shall not be disclosed, except: (1) As between the Committees, Board, and Director in furtherance of their duties; 2) In proceedings before a referee or this Court under these Rules; (3) As between the Director and a lawyer admission or disciplinary authority of another jurisdiction in which the lawyer affected is admitted to practice or seeks to- practice: (4> Upon request of the lawyer affected; (5) Where permitted by this Court; or (6) Where required or permitted by these Rules. A-46 (b) Special matters. The following may be dis- closed by the Director: (1) The fact that a matter is or is not being inves- tigated or considered by the Committee, Director, or Pa- nel; (2) The fact that the Director has either determined that discipline is not warranted, or issued an admonition: (3) The Panel’s disposition under these Rules; (4) The fact that stipulated probation has been ap- proved under Rule 8(c) (3). (c) Referee or Court proceedings. Except as ordered by the referee or this Court, the files, records, and pro- ceedings before a referee or this Court under these Rules are not confidential. * * * RULE 25. REQUIRED COOPERATION (a‘ Lawyer’s duty. It shall be the duty of any law- yer who is the subject of an investigation or proceed- ing under these Rules to cooperate with the District Com- mittee, the Director or his staff, the Board, or a Panei, by complying with reasonable requests, including requests to: (1) Furnish designated papers, documents or tangible odjects; (2) Furnish in writing a full and complete explana- tion covering the matter under consideration; (3° Appear for conferences and hearings at the times and places designated. A-47 (b) Grounds of discipline. Violation of this rule is unprofessional conduct and shall constitute a ground for discipline. EXHIBIT E MINNESOTA CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONS- IBILITY DR 1-102. Misconduct. (A) A lawyer shall not: (1) Violate a Disciplinary Rule. (2. Circumvent a Disciplinary Rule through actions of another (3) Engage in illegal conduct involving moral turpi- tude (4) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, traud, deceit, or misrepresentation. (5) Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the ad- ministration of justice. (6) Engage in any other conduct that. adversely re- flects on his fitness to practice law. DR 2-103. Recommendation of Professional Employ ment: Suggestion of Need of Legal Services. (A) The following prohibitions shall apply to in-person or telephonic communications, and to employment result- ing therefrom, but shall not apply to advertisement, written communications or to employment resulting there- from, unless the communications contain false, fraudu- A-48 lent, misleading or deceptive statements or claims pro- hibited under DR 2-101. (1) A lawyer shall not recommend employment as a private practitioner, or himself or anyone associated with him to a non-lawyer who has not sought his advice re- garding employment of a lawyer. (2) A lawyer shall not compensate or give anything of value to any person to recommend or secure, or as a reward for having recommended or secured employment bv a client of himself or any lawyer associated with him, with the exception of public relations or advertising ser- vices. (3) A lawyer shall not request any person to recom- mend employment, as a private practitioner, of himself or anyone associated with him. (4) A lawyer shall not accept employment when he knows or it is obvious that the person who seeks his ser- vices does so as a result of conduct prohibited under this Disciplinary Rule. . (5) A lawyer shall not accept employment if he krows or it is obvious that it results from unsolicited ad- vice by him or any lawyer associated with him to a lay- man that he should obtain counsel or take legal action, except: (a) If the advice was ‘o a close friend, relative, form- er client (if the advice is germane to the former employ- ment), or one reasonably believed to be a client. (by) Without affecting the right to accept employment, a lawyer may speak publicly or write for publication on legal topics. A-49 (c) If success in asserting rights or defense of his client in litigation in the nature of a class action is de- pendent upon the joinder of others, a lawyer may accept, but shall not seek employment from those contacted for the purpose of obtaining their joinder. (Amended, effective September 29, 1975; amended. ef- fective May 29, 1980). DR 3-102. Dividing Legal Fees with a Non-Lawyer. (A) A lawyer or law firm shall not share legal fees with a non-lawyer, except that: (1) An agreement by a lawyer with his firm, partner, or associate may provide for the payment of money, over a reasonable period of time after his death, to his estate or to one or more specified persons. (2) A lawyer who undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a deceased lawyer may pay to the estate or the deceased lawyer that proportion of the total com- pensation which fairly represents the services rendered by the deceased lawyer. (3) A lawyer or law firm may include non-lawyer employees in a retirement plan, even though the pian is based in whole or in part on a profit-sharing arrange- ment. DR 5-101. Refusing Employment When the Interests of the Lawyer May Impair His Independent Professional Judgment. (A) Except with the consent of his client after full dis- closure, a lawyer shall not accept employment if. the ex- ercise of his professional judgment on behalf of his client A-50 wll be or reasonably may be affected by his own finan- cial. business, property, or personal interests. (BY A lawyer shall not accept employment in con- templated or pending litigation if he knows or it is ob- vicus that he or a lawyer in his firm ought to be called as a witness, except that he may undertake the employ- ment and he or a lawyer in his firm nay testify: (1) If the testimony will relate sulely to an uncon- tested matter. (2) If the testimony will relate solely to a matter of formality and there is no reason to believe that substantial evidence will be offered in opposition to the testimony. (3) If the testimony will relate solely to the nature and value of legal services rendered in the case by the lawyer or his firm to the client. (4. As to any matter, if refusal would work a sub- stantial hardship on the client because of the distinctive value of the lawyer or his firm as counsel in the particu- lar case. DR 5-105. Refusing to Accept or Continue Employment if the Interests of Another Client May Impair the Inde- pendent Professional Judgment of the Lawyer. (A) A lawyer shall decline proferred employment if the exercise of his independent professional judgment in behalf of a client will be or is likely to be adversely affected by the acceptance of the proferred employment, or if it would be likely to involve him in representing differing interests. except to the extent permitted under DR 5-105(C). (B) A lawyer shall not continue multiple employment we Te eS OS ee ee ee Oe ee ee as Seren * mh ON ML 2 nee eS Tk EY Ee ae i. cr hae te A-51 if the exercise of his independent professional judgment in behalf of a client will be or is likely to be adversely affected by his representation of another client, or if it would be likely to involve him in representing differing interests, except to the extent permitted under DR 5-105(C). (C) In the situations covered by DR 5-195(A) and (B), a lawyer may represent multiple clients if it is obvious that he can adequately represent the interests of each and if each consents to the representation after full disclosure of the possible effect of such representation on the exercise of his independent professional judgment on behalf of each. * * * DR 5-106. Settling Similar Claims of Clients (A) A lawyer who represents two or more clients shall not make or participate in the making of an aggregate settlement of the claims of or against his clients, unless each client has consented to the settlement after being aivised of the existence and nature of all the claims in- vulved in the proposed settlement, of the total amount of the settlement, and of the participation of each person in the settlement. DR 7-101. Representing a Client Zealously (A) A lawyer shall not intentionally (1) Fail to seek the lawful objectives of his client through reasonably available means permitted by law and ~ the Disciplinary Rules, except as provided by DR 7-101(B). A lawyer does not violate this Disciplinary Rule, how- ever, by acceding to reasonable requests of opposing counsel which do not prejudice the rights of his client, by A-52 being punctual in fulfilling all professional commitments, by avoiding offensive tactics, or by treating with courtesy and cons:deration all persons involved in the legal process. (2) Fail to carry out a contract of employment en- tered into with a client for professional services, but he may withdraw as permitted under DR 2-110, DR 5- 102, and DR 5-105. (3) Prejudice or damage his client during the course of the professional relationship, except as required under DR 7-102(B). (B) Inhis representation of a client, a lawyer may: (1) Where permissible, exercise his professional judg- ment to waive or fail to assert a right or position .f his client (2. Refuse to aid or participate in conduct that he believes to be unlawful, even though there is some support for an argument that the conduct is legal. CANON 9 A Lawyer Should Avoid Even the Appearance of Professional Impropriety 9-102. Preserving Identify of Funds and Property of a Client (A) All funds of clients paid to a lawyer or law firm shall be deposited in one or more identifiable interest bear- ing trust accounts as set forth in DR 9-103. No funds be- longing to the lawyer or law firm shall be deposited there- in except as follows: A-53 (1) Funds of the lawyer or law firm reasonably suf- ficient to pay service charges may be deposited therein. (2 Funds belonging in part to a client and in part presently or potentially to the lawver or law firm must be deposited therein, but the portion belonging to the lawyer or law firm may be withdrawn when due unless the right of the lawyer or law firm to receive it is disputed by the client, in which event the disputed portion shall not be withdrawn until the dispute is finallv resolved. (B) A lawyer shall: (1) Promptly notify a client of the receipt ut his funds, securities, or other properties. (2) Identify and label securities and properties of a client promptly upon receipt and place them in a sate de- posit box or other place of safekeeping as soon as >racti- cable. (3) Maintain complete records of all funds, securi- ties, and other properties of a client coming into thc pos- session of the lawyer and render appropriate accounts to his client regarding them. (4) Promptly pay or deliver to the client as requested by a client the funds, securities, or other properties in the pcssession of the lawyer which the client is entitled to re- ceive. (Amended effective July 1, 1983). . A-54 EXHIBIT G MINNESOTA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT Effective September 1, 1985 RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT C8-84-1650 ORDER PROMULGATING MINNESOTA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT WHEREAS, The American Bar Association has adopted Model Rules of Professional Responsibility; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Ad Hoc Committee on the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct, a committee of the Minnesota State Bar Associa- ticn, has proposed the adoption of the ABA Mode! Rules, with certain amendments; and WHEREAS, the Rules as modified by the Ad Hoc Com- mittee have been discussed at a convention of the Min- nesota State Bar Association on June 30, 1984; and WHEREAS, the House of Delegates and General As- sembly of the Minnesota State Bar Association has di- cected the officers of the association to petition the Min- nesota Supreme Court to adopt the ABA Model Rules as amended; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Supreme Court has held a hearing on the proposed rules on January 4, 1985, and being fully advised in the premises, A-55 NOW. THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the attached Minnesota Rules of Profesional Conduct are adopted as the standard of professional responsibility for lawyers admitted to practice in Minnesota, effective September 1, 1985, and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the existing Min- nesota Code of Professional Responsibility as adopted by the Minnesota Supreme Court on August 4, 1970, is here- by repealed, effective August 31, 1985. Dated: June 3, 1985. BY THE COURT /s/ Douglas K. Amdahl Chief Justice Minnesota Supreme Court RULE 1.2 Scope of Representation (a) A lawyer shall abide by a client’s decisions con- cerning the objectives of representation, subject to para- graphs (b), (c) and (d), and shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued. A lawyer shall abide by a client’s decision whether to accept an offer of settlement of the matter. In a criminal case, the lawyer shall abide by the client’s decision, after consultation with the lawyer, as to a plea to be entered, whether to waive jury trial and whether the client will testify. (b) A lawyer may limit the objectives of the representa- tion if the client consents after consultation. (c) A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent, but a lawyer may discuss the legal conse- quence of any proposed course of conduct with a client A-56 and may counsel or assist a client to make a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning or applica- tion of the law. * * * RULE 1.3 Diligence A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. COMMENT: A lawyer should pursue a matter on behalf of a client despite opposition, obstruction or personal inconvenience to the lawyer, and may take whatever lawful and ethical measures are required to vindicate a client’s cause or en- deavor. A lawyer should act with commitment and dedi- cation to the interests of the client and with zeal in advo- cacy upon the client’s behalf. However, a lawyer is not bound to press for every advantage that might be real- ‘zed for a client. A lawyer has professional discretion in determining the means by which a matter should be pur- sued Sce Rule 1.2. A lawyer’s workload should be con- trolled so that each matter can be handled adequately. Perhaps no professional shortcoming is more widely re- sented than procrastination. A client’s interests often can be adversely affected by the passage of time or the change of conditions; in extreme instances, as when a lawyer overlooks a statute of limitations, the client’s legal posi- tion may be destroyed, Even when the client’s interests are not affected in substance, however, unreasonable de- lay can cause a Client needless anxiety and undermine confidence in the lawyer’s trustworthiness. Unless the relationship is terminated as provided in A-57 Rule 1.16, a lawyer should carry through to conclusion all matters undertaken for a client. If a lawyer’s employ- ment is limited to a specific matter the selationship termin- aies when the matter has been resolved. If a lawyer has served a client over a substantial period in a variety of matters, the client sometimes may assume that the lawyer will continue to serve on a continuing basis unless the lawyer gives notice of withdrawal. Doubt about whether a client-lawyer relationship still exists should be clarified by the lawyer, preferably in writing, so that the client will nct mistakenly suppose the lawyer is looking after the clhient’s affairs when the lawyer has ceased to do so. For example. if a lawyer has handled a judicial or adminis- trative proceeding that produced a result adverse to the chent but has not been specifically instructed concerning pursuit of an appeal, the lawyer should advise the client of the possibility of appeal before relinquishing responsi- bility for the matter. RULE 1.7 Conflict of Interest: General Rule (a) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the repre- sentation of that client will be directly adverse to another client, unless: (1) the lawyer reasonably believes the rpresen- tation will not adversely affect the relation- ship with the other client; and (2) each client consents after consultation. (b) Every lawyer engaged in private practice of law shall maintain or cause to be maintained on a currect basis books and records sufficient to demonstrate income derived from, and expenses related to, the lawyer’s private practice of law, and to establish compliance with para- ieee A-62 eraphs (a) through (e). The books and records shall be preserved for at least six years following the end of the taxable year to which they relate or, as to books and rec- ords relating to funds or property of clients, for at least six years after completion of the employment to which they relate. (h) Every lawyer subject to paragraph (g) shall cer- tify, in connection with the annual renewal of the lawyer’s registration and in such form as the Clerk of the Appel- late Court may prescribe, that the lawyer or the law- yzr’s law firm maintains books and records as required by p3ragravh (g). RULE 5.4 Professional Independence of a Lawyer (a’ A lawyer or law firm shall not share legal fees with a nonlawyer, except that: (1) an agreement by a lawyer with the lawyer's firm, partner, or associate may provide for the payment of money, over a reasonable period of time after the lawyer’s death. to the lawyer’s estate or to one or more specified persons; (2) a lawyer who undertakes to complete un- finished legal business of a deceased lawyer may pay to the estate of the deceased law- yer the proportion of the total compensation which fairly represents the services rendered by the deceased lawyer; and (3) a lawyer or law firm may include nonlawyer employees in a compensation or retirement A-63 plan, even though the plan is based in whole or in part on a profit-sharing arrangement (b) A lawyer shall not form a partnership with a non- Jawyer if any of the activities of the partnership consist of the practice of law. (c) A lawyer shall not permit a person who recom- mends, employs, or pays the lawyer to render legal ser- vices for another to direct or regulate the lawyer’s pro- fessional judgment in rendering such legal services. (d) A lawyer shall not practice with or in the form of a professional corporation or association authorized to practice law for a profit, if: (1) a nonlawyer owns any interestt therein, ex- cept that a fiduciary representative of the es- tate of a lawyer may hold the stock or in- terest of a lawyer for a reasonable time dur- ing administration; (2) a nonlawyer is a corporate director or officer thereof; or (3) a nonlawyer has the right to direct or control the professional judgment of a lawyer. Rule 7.3. Direct Contact with Prospective Clients A lawyer may not solicit professional employment from | a prospective client with whom the lawyer has no family or prior professional relationship, by in-person or telephone contact, when a significant motive for the lawyer’s doing so is the Jawyet’s pecuniary gain. A-64 RULE 8.4 Misconduct It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Profes- sicnal Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another tc do so, or do so through the acts of another; (b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a law- ver in other respects; (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, de- ~eit or misrepresentation; (d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the ad- ministration of justice. (e’ state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official; or (f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in con- duct that is a violation of eases rules of judicial con- duct or other law. EXHIBIT 2 STATE OF MINNESOTA Ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AFFIDAVIT OF STEPHEN S. ECKMAN STEPHEN S. ECKMAN, being first duly sworn on oath, says: 1. Affiant is a licensed attorney in Minnesota, practic- ing in Minneapolis at 501 Butler Square, with the firm of ECKMAN, STRANDNESS & EGAN, P.A.; A-65 2. Affiant was an employee of the DeParcq, Anderson, Perl & Hunegs (Respondents) Law Firm from August 1, 1972 through April 6, 1979, as an attorney; 3. While with Respondent’s law firm, Affiant handled plaintiff personal injury cases and Federal Employer Lia- bility Act cases (FELA files); 4 During affiant’s employment with the Respondent’s law firm, Respondent was a managing partner with Richard G. Hunegs, each owning fifty percent of the law firm: 5. Affiant was introduced to Willard F. Browne as a ciaims adjuster for Aetna Casualty Insurance Conipany (Aetna); 6 Affiant was aware that Respondent’s law firm op- posed Aetna in various legal matters in addition tc the Dalkon Shield claims; 7. Affiant was not aware Browne had been hired by Respondent’s law firm for any kind of work on any files, FELA. or otherwise; 8 Affiant became aware that Browne was granted access to Respondent’s law firm offices on occasion, in- cluding a portion of the law firm in which client Dalkon Shield files were stored; 9. Affiant observed no work by Browne on any FELA - fires, nor did he observe Browne working on any FFLA files in the offices of Respondent’s law firm; 10. Your affiant, in reviewing numerous FELA files over the term of his employment with the law firm, ob- served no work product of any kind produced by Browne, or any references to Browne, in any FELA file; A-66 11. Affiant was present in office meetings when Re- spondent and Hunegs instructed office attorneys to handle cases with Aetna, Browne’s employer, differently than other insurance companies. Cases with Aetna were not tc be placed in suit, but were to be given to Respondent for negotiation with Browne; 12 Affiant attended a general office staff meeting of attorneys and investigators in which Respondent instructed various attorneys in the room to prepare several Aetna cuses for settlement discussions with Browne, who was to be in the office the following week. Respondent also said Browne was in Las Vegas, Nevada, on that date, and com- mented, “I don’t know what that is costing me;” 13. Your Affiant did not work on Dalkon Shield claims in the law firm, but did see Browne in the law of- fices on many occasions with firm Dalkon Shield files in his possession, in the company of Respondent; 14. In early March 1979, Affiant was summoned to a eeting in Respondent’s office. Respondent told those in aitendance (Hunegs, Donald Rudquist, Orville Heil, and your Affiant) that he had just learned of a Complaint lodged against Respondent’s law firm by a doctor in Su- perior, Wisconsin. At that meeting, Respondent directed Affiant to go to the Duluth/Superior area and meet with Respondent’s Dalkon Shield clients in the Radisson Hotel. Affiant was instructed by Respondent to have each of the clients sign a document confirming that Respondent and his agents had not solicited the client’s case, but that the clients had sought Respondent’s advice and representation on the Dalkon Shield cases. Affiant refused to do this: A-67 15. A second meeting was held at Respondent’s law offices sometime later regarding the same subject matter as the above meeting. Affiant was also present at this meeting. Respondent again directed Affiant to go to the Duluth/Superior area, talk to the Dalkon Shield clients and have them sign the letter above discussed, but your Affiant refused again to participate in this activity. At that time, Respondent, Hunegs, Rudquist, and your Af- fiant dictated a strong letter to the doctor (and another doctor making a complaint from West Duluth) to hopeful- lv dissuade the doctor from his complaint. 16 Further your Affiant states and verily believes that this final meeting was held on April 6, 1979, Af- fiant’s last working day at Respondent’s law firm; FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. /s/ Stephen S. Eckman Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6 day of Feb. 1984. /s/ Helen C. Carcicfini NOTARY PUBLIC EXHIBIT 5 STATE OF MINNESOTA Ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN MICHAEL EGAN I, JOHN MICHAEL EGAN, being first duly sworr on oath, says: A-68 1. Affiant is a licensed attorney in Minnesota. 2. Affiant was employed as an attorney with DeParcq, Anderson, Perl & Hunegs (respondent’s) law firm from January 1976, until April 8, 1979. 3. While with respondent’s law firm, Affiant handled perscnal injury and probate matters. 4. During Affiant’s employment with respondent’s law firm respondent was a managing partner. 5. Affiant knew Willard F. Browne (Browne) to be a claims adjuster for Aetna Casualty and Surety Insurance Company (Aetna). 6. Affiant verily believes that within the perioa of January 1976 to April 1979, that Browne had not been hued by respondent’s law firm to work on Federa: Em- ployee Liability Act (FELA) cases nor on any other kind of cases 7. Affiant frequently saw Browne in respondent’s law offices on a weekly or more than weekly basis. Affiant saw Browne at respondent’s law office’s social functions. 8. At an office meeting for all lawyers and investiga- tcrs in respondent’s law office in early 1978, Affiant heard respondent to say Will says Aetna is paying on these (Dalkon Shield) claims and they should go out and sign up some of these cases. 9. During an office meeting at respondent’s law of- fice in the spring of 1978, Affiant heard respondent say Will says other lawyers are getting fifty percent on these (Dalkon Shield) cases and that respondent’s office shou!d do so too. Affiant did not agree to dc this. A-69 10. Browne never attended any of the regularly scheduled office meetings at respondent’s law firm from January 1976 to April 1979. 11. At a 1978 Christmas party at which respondent, Browne, investigators for respondent’s law firm and other employees were present, Affiant heard respondent say to Olson, an investigator, don’t worry about Will, we’re tak- ‘ng care of him. : 12. Affiant handled approximately seventeen Dalkon Shield cases for respondent’s law firm. Respondent did all the settlement negotiations on Affiant’s files. Affiant was not present at the settlement negotiations. 13. Dalkon Shield cases were handled differently than Jther personal injury cases in respondent’s law office. Other claims were handled with a view towards going to trial. Dalkon Shield cases were handled with a view toward settlement. 14. Late in November 1978, Affiant observed Browne going through a stack of ten to fifteen Dalkon Shield files in respondent’s offices. Four of these files were being handled by Affiant. Affiant had not given Browne per- mission to review these files. These four files were settled between respondent and Browne as part of a group on January 31, 1979. 15 On several occasions, Respondent told Affiant that ~ Browne said a case (Dalkon Shield) could settle for X dollars if respondent could get certain specific medical or biographical information into the file. 16. Affiant brought the Mary A. Pitman Dalkon Shield claim into respondent’s law firm on a referral from —— A-70 another attorney. The issue of causation between the use of the Dalkon Shield and the alleged injury in the Pit- man case was defensible as indicated in the medical rec- ord. In March of 1979, respondent told Affiant he had met with Browne regarding the Pitman case. Respondent said the case could be settled for $8,000 but thought he could get $10,000 to $14,000. Respondent further said Browne told him if a doctor’s opinion could be obtained stating the Dalkon Shield was related to the injury they could get $18,000 to $20,000. On April 8, 1979, Affiant started his own practice and had physical possession of the Pitman file. On April 30, 1979, respondent sent a let- ter to Pitman, carbon copying Affiant. Affiant had not given respondent permission to negotiate for his client Pitman. The April 30 letter stated respondent had been offered $24,000 on the Pitman claim. Affiant then spoke to Ms. Pitman after receiving a copy of this letter and set up a meeting with respondent, Ms. Pitman and himself. This meeting was held May 2, 1979, at respondent’s of- fice. Respondent told Pitman that Aetna made an offer of $20,000 to $22,000 but he thought he could get as much as $24,000. The date of the settlement check to Pitman is May 8, 1979, for $24,000. There were no ex- penses on the settlement sheet for any further medical opinions or medical evaluations done on the Pitman case prior to negotiation and settlement. Affiant advised his client, Pitman, that it was in her best interest to accept the substantial settlement offer, which she did. 17. Affiant was aware that respondent’s law firm paid referral fees to non-lawyer employees for bringing in cases to the firm. Det -SEiiet? dire on 0 ke 4 ted oy eel 2 ea) A-71 18. -Affiant was aware that respondent’s law firm op- posed Aetna in other matters in addition to the Dalkon Shield claims. 19. Affiant was never informed by respondent that Browne was available as an expert consultant for medi- cal evaluations. | FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. /s/ John Michael Egan Subscribed and sworn to before me this 8 day of Feb. 1984. /s/ Helen C. Carciofini Notary Public --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385017_0271%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.