On Wednesday, January 25, 2023, the Supreme Court in the State of Minnesota indefinitely suspended attorney Larry John Laver over multiple misconducts.

The case is entitled “In the matter of Larry John Laver” and was brought by the Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility with case no. A21-1532.

The charges cited Rules of Professional Conduct 1,3, 1.5(b)(3), 1.15(c)(4), 1.16(d), 1.16(e)(2), 4.1, 8,1, 8.4(c), 8.4(d), 1.4(a)(3), 3.2, 3.3(a)(1), 3.4(c), 1.5(a),1.16(c), 8.4(a) which state:

Diligence.

Prohibiting fee arrangements described as “nonrefundable.

Requiring that when a client is entitled to receive property, the attorney, upon request, delivers that client’s property.

Requiring attorney to return client papers and property upon termination of representation.

Describing client papers and property to include “expert opinions” and “other materials that may have evidentiary value.

Prohibiting knowingly false statements when representing a client.

Prohibiting knowingly false statements of material fact in connection with a disciplinary matter.

Prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

Requiring an attorney to keep client informed about the status of a case.

Requiring reasonable efforts to expedite litigation.

Prohibiting knowingly false statements to tribunals.

Prohibiting collection of unreasonable fees.

Compliance with court rules upon the termination of representation.

The Rules of Professional Conduct can be found here.

Allegedly, the respondent committed a wide-range misconduct that includes misrepresentations, neglect of clients, disobedience to court orders, collection of improper fees, conflict of interest, engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the Administration of Justice, and failing to cooperate with the investigations of his disciplinary charges.

The filing states:

“J.C. retained Laver to represent her in connection with the OFP in the fall of 2015. J.C. directed Laver to obtain the tape of the interview, and Laver told J.C. that he would do so. But despite repeated follow-ups from J.C. throughout November and December 2015, Laver did not obtain the tape. Despite not acquiring the tape, Laver listed the video as an exhibit for the OFP trial and identified as potential witnesses the custodian of the taped interview and an expert witness whose testimony would include discussing that interview.

J.C.’s ethics complaint was investigated by a District Ethics Committee (DEC). In his written response to the DEC, Laver claimed that he “never promised he would obtain this video” and that he was “not even aware of this video until after [he] was terminated from the case,” despite having listed the video as a trial exhibit.”

The filing continues:

“When the case was called on December 12, 2018, E.B. was in the courtroom, but Laver was not. Laver did not tell E.B. that he was not going to appear. The court read an e-mail that Laver had sent earlier that same day in which he stated that he did not believe the hearing was necessary because the parties were working toward a settlement. However, no work toward a settlement had occurred because Laver had not provided E.B.’s income information to the mother’s attorney. When questioned by the court, E.B. became emotional and told the court that he had provided his income information to Laver. The court recessed the case after receiving a call from Laver stating that he was 45 minutes away. When Laver arrived, he did not have a computer with him or any documentation of E.B.’s income, but E.B. claimed that he had the information on his cell phone. Therefore, the court recessed again to allow E.B. to share the income information on his phone with all counsel.”

The filing further states:

“In March 2021, Laver noted in a conversation with counsel for T.D.’s ex-husband that he would have a conflict of interest if he continued to represent both the bail bonds company and T.D. Thus, in April 2021, Laver obtained a signed waiver form from the bail bonds company and T.D. The waiver form did not advise T.D. of the company’s interest in preserving the bail bond mortgage to protect its collateral, nor did it advise the company of T.D.’s interest in having the bail bond mortgage removed to purge T.D.’s contempt. Laver continued to represent T.D. to purge her contempt. However, the bail bonds company refused to remove the bail bond mortgage from the Woodbury home, and the bail bond mortgage prevented T.D. from refinancing her home as she was required to do to 10 purge her contempt. Therefore, the court appointed a receiver to manage the sale of the Woodbury home. In addition, T.D. was assessed $16,500 in conduct-based attorney fees based on her continuing contempt and violation of the judgment and decree.”

The misconduct of the respondent affected five clients over more than seven years, resulting in multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Despite the respondent’s argument that there is no harm to the public because the Director waited for two years to bring the action fails to explain how any delay lessens the number of clients that he harmed. The court strongly stated that a delay in bringing charges does not affect its analysis unless the respondent is prejudiced by the said delay. Accordingly, the court decided to indefinitely suspend the respondent.

The Disposition states:

“Respondent Larry John Laver is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law, effective 14 days from the date of this opinion, with no right to petition for reinstatement for 8 months.”

Mr. Laver practices in Woodbury, Minnesota. He is licensed in Minnesota. His info can be found on lawyers.findlaw.com.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.