A16-1282
STATE OF MINNESOTAIN SUPREME COURT ______________________________________________________________________ In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action against
REFEREE’S FINDINGS OFFACT, CONCLUSIONS OF
MICHELLE LOWNEY MacDONALD,
LAW, RECOMMENDATION FOR
AMinnesota Attorney
DISCIPLINE AND
Registration No. 0182370
MEMORANDUM
______________________________________________________________________
The above-entitled matter came before The Honorable Heather L. Sweetland, actingas Referee by an Order of Appointment of the Minnesota Supreme Court filed September 14, 2016, for hearing on November 15-16, 2016.Director Susan M. Humiston(License No. 0254289), 1500 Landmark Towers, 345 St. Peter Street, St. Paul, MN 55102-1218, appeared on behalf of the Office of the Lawyers Professional Responsibility. Paul C. Engh(License No. 134685),200 South Sixth Street, Suite 420, Minneapolis, MN 555402,appeared on behalf of Respondent Michelle Lowney MacDonaldwho was present at all times during the hearing.The hearing was held based on the Director’s July 13, 2016, Petition for Disciplinary Action. District Court Judge David Knutson, Attorney Lisa Elliottand the Respondent testified at the hearing. Exhibits 1-64(hereinafter D. Ex.)were offered and admitted, with no objection, on behalf of the Director. Exhibits 101-129(hereinafter R. Ex.)were offered and admitted, with no objection, on behalf of the Respondent. The referee takes judicial notice of the documents filedin theRegister of Actions for the
January 3, 2017
Grazzini-Ruckiproceeding (D. Ex. 1; R. Ex 108 (partial))admitted as part of the evidence.Based on thetestimony andexhibits adduced at said hearing and upon all of the files and records herein, the Referee makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.Respondent, Michelle Lowney MacDonald (hereinafter Respondent), was admitted to practice law in Minnesota on September 11, 1987. (Minnesota Attorney Registration System (MARS))2.Respondent primarily practices in the area of family law but also provides estate planning services and appellate work. (R. Ex.120) Her current law firm, MacDonald Law Firm, LLC, employs other attorneys besides herself and a paralegal and has been in business since 2004. (R. Test.; R. Ex. 120)3.Respondent founded and is president of Family Innocence, a non-profit organization, which advertises affordable mediation and restorative family circle facilitatorsin family court proceedings. (R.Ex. 120, 121, 122) She assisted in writing a legislative bill to amend or abolish the current family law statutes. (R. Ex. 129)4.Respondent has providedextensive
pro bono
assistance. (R. Test., R. Ex. 120)
Grazzini-Rucki Case-Pre-Trial Proceedings
5.Respondentfirst met Sandra Grazzini-Ruckion January 1, 2013 at a social held by Family Innocence. (D. Ex. 20, Factual Allegation 99; R. Test.) Ms. Grazzini-Rucki was the petitioner in a dissolution proceeding pending since
2011 in Dakota County (Minnesota Case File No.: 19AV-FA-11-1273). (D. Ex. 1)6.Prior to January 1, 2013, Ms. Grazzini-Rucki had been represented by at least threeattorneys in her dissolutionproceeding, namely, Kathryn Graves, Linda Olup andElizabeth Henry. (D. Ex. 1; D. Ex. 23-25) Elizabeth Henry had withdrawn as Ms. Grazzini-Rucki’s attorney on November 7, 2012. (D. Ex. 1)7.Thedissolution case wasfiled in Dakota County, Minnesota, on April 21, 2011. (D. Ex. 1) Judge DavidKnutson was randomly assigned to the casein August 2011pursuant to the suggestion ofMs. Grazzini-Rucki’sthenattorney(KathrynGraves)due to the complexity of the case. (ElliottTest.; Knutson Test.; D. Ex. 1; D. Ex. 44, p. 55)8.According to Respondent, Ms. Grazzini-Rucki told Respondent a story of being evictedfromher home and not allowed to have contact with her five childrenbased on a September 7, 2012, Order.(R. Test.) Respondent reviewed the court file at the Dakota County Courthouse over a period of three days. (R. Test.) After again meeting with Ms. Grazzini-Rucki, Respondent agreed to represent her on a constitutional challenge to Minn. Chap. 518,
et.seq.
(R. Test.) 9.Later, at a June 12, 2013 hearing, Respondent confirmed she was representing Ms. Grazzini-Rucki regarding the custody, parenting time and child support issues still outstanding in the dissolution proceeding. (D. Ex. 47, p. 52)