From our private database of 35,400+ case briefs...
Disciplinary Board v. Becker
North Dakota Supreme Court
504 N.W.2d 303 (1993)
Donald Becker (defendant) was a North Dakota attorney who had been disbarred in Arizona. Becker was forthcoming to the North Dakota bar about the Arizona disbarment and had no other disciplinary issues. Becker represented Dennis Mees in matters including fraud. The police arrested Mees, confiscated Mees’s jewelry, and shipped the jewelry to Becker. Becker had the jewelry appraised. The appraised retail value was $5,500, and the appraised fair market value was $2,250. Becker left the jewelry in the console of his car, and the jewelry was stolen. Mees and Becker decided that Becker would compensate Mees with legal work. According to Becker, Mees later agreed that Becker’s work had exceeded the value of the jewelry. Becker sent Mees an itemized statement for about $6,400. Mees then accused Becker of stealing the jewelry and filed a disciplinary complaint. A panel of the Disciplinary Board (the board) (plaintiff) held a hearing on Becker’s violation of the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct, which require a lawyer to safeguard a client’s property. Becker presented his appraisal of $5,500, and Mees offered an appraisal of $8,840. Mees’s appraisal was not credible because the appraiser had never seen the jewelry and had given blank letterhead to Mees so Mees could create appraisals for himself. The board found that Becker’s fee was reasonable but that the value of the property could not be appraised because of Becker’s negligence and held that Becker’s negligence reflected badly on the legal profession. The panel found that Becker’s Arizona disbarment was an aggravating factor, concluded that Becker’s negligence caused injury or potential injury to Mees, and recommended a public reprimand and that Becker pay costs. The board adopted the panel’s recommendation and submitted the recommendation to the North Dakota Supreme Court, where Becker argued that because the jewelry was worth less than the value of the legal services, Mees did not suffer a loss or potential loss, so private reprimand was appropriate.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Meschke, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 617,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 617,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,400 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.