On Tuesday, September 9, 2025, the Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed a petition in the Supreme Court of Minnesota, seeking disciplinary action against attorney Gregory S. Walz. The petition alleges a pattern of unprofessional conduct warranting public discipline, citing multiple violations of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC).

The case is entitled “In the Matter of Gregory S. Walz.”

The petition outlines Walz’s disciplinary history, including three prior admonitions. In 2009, he was admonished for failing to recognize a serious procedural error in a termination of parental rights and adoption matter, failing to advise his client of the error, and failing to clearly communicate the scope of representation in his fee agreement, violating Rules 1.1, 1.4(a)(2) and (b), 1.5(b), and 8.4(d).

In 2004, he was admonished for charging a client for services after withdrawing from representation in a dissolution matter, failing to provide an accounting of trust account withdrawals, and failing to provide a copy of the client’s file, violating Rules 1.5(a), 1.15(b), and 1.16(d). In 2000, he was admonished for failing to handle a client’s child support and visitation matter with adequate diligence and for failing to communicate with the client, violating Rules 1.3, and 1.4(a).

The current petition centers on Walz’s representation of family members, including himself, in litigation stemming from a 2017 automobile accident that resulted in injuries and the death of his grandson. The Director alleges that Walz undertook representation of multiple family members, creating a concurrent conflict of interest under MRPC Rule 1.7(a)(2) because his personal interest as a family member and plaintiff could have materially limited his ability to represent each client’s best interest. The Director claims Walz did not obtain informed consent from each client, confirmed in writing, to the conflict of interest.

The petition further details a series of actions taken by Walz during and after settlement negotiations that are alleged to be in violation of the MRPC. These actions include:

  • Requesting conflict waivers after a settlement had been negotiated.
  • Directing co-counsel to cease work on the case.
  • Submitting an amended petition for distribution of funds that significantly altered the distribution of settlement funds, reducing the award to a minor child and increasing his wife’s award as trustee, while also reducing co-counsel’s attorney fees and increasing his own.
  • Opposing co-counsel’s petition for attorney’s fees, arguing that the fee agreement was invalid.
  • Making statements maligning the integrity of the district court, Roberts, and opposing counsel, including claims of bias, conspiracy, and fraud.
  • Filing a motion to have the district court judge recuse herself, repeating unsupported claims of bias and prejudice.
  • Accusing the judge’s staff of ex parte communications and improperly communicating with him.
  • Filing an amended motion to disqualify the judge and opposing counsel.
  • Refusing to sign a settlement agreement and release, delaying the matter with frivolous motions and appeals.
  • Including provisions related to attorney’s fees issues in a petition for settlement, even though the plaintiffs in the settlement case did not have the authority to determine those issues.
  • Failing to file receipts of settlement distributions as ordered by the court.
  • Filing a “MEMORANDUM OF LAW” disparaging the district court and blaming the court for delays in approving settlement requests.
  • Knowingly failing to comply with a court order to file a supersedes bond.
  • Sending a letter to judges shifting blame for his failure to file receipts and requesting sanctions against Roberts.
  • Filing a motion asking for relief already requested and rejected, including sanctions against Roberts and denying interest to his granddaughter’s financial award.
  • Failing to provide his granddaughter’s social security number as ordered by the court.
  • Filing a motion to remove a judge from the case, making statements impugning the integrity of the judge.
  • Attaching a civil complaint against a judge and the Stearns County Court Administrator.
  • Submitting a tax form 1099 falsely stating he had paid Roberts the settlement amount.

The Director alleges that Walz’s conduct violated Rules 1.7(a)(2), 3.1, 3.2, 3.3(a), 3.4(c), 4.1, 4.4(a), 8.2(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d). The Director seeks an order from the Supreme Court imposing appropriate discipline, awarding costs and disbursements, and granting other just relief.

According to Avvo, Mr. Walz is a workers’ compensation lawyer in Saint Cloud, MN. He acquired his law license in Minnesota in 1987.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.