A Bemidji attorney who is currently suspended from the practice of law in Minnesota faces discipline for misconduct which allegedly occurred while suspended. Darrell G. Carter, who was suspended in 2023, and admonished three out of the five years preceding the suspension, has 20 days from Dec. 3 to answer the allegations.
Carter faces multiple charges of unprofessional conduct. One count includes the unauthorized practice of law. The Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility listed five matters in which Carter allegedly practiced law despite being suspended. This included a client facing criminal charges, a client seeking early release from probation, two clients in custody for suspicion of driving while under the influence, and a client in a marital dissolution. Carter also allegedly failed to notify clients of his suspension.
Minnesota Lawyer was unable to reach Carter for comment.
In one instance, according to the OLPR petition, Carter was retained to represent a client in a marital dissolution. During the representation, the client asked Carter if he was suspended. He texted back that if he was unable to resolve the case, she would have to get another attorney. She asked for a recommendation, but did not hear back. While trying to find new legal counsel, the client learned for the first time about her trial date and that she had been required to and had failed to complete the parenting education class ordered in a Parent Education Order. Carter also did not refund unearned fees after representation was terminated.
In another instance, the OLRP said, Carter represented a client seeking expungement of two theft cases from his criminal record. Carter received $1,500 as a flat fee for filing the expungements. The client was told to contact Carter to begin the expungement process. The client did not contact Carter, so four years elapsed with no attempt to communicate with the client. There was no contact with this client until the client filed a complaint with the OLPR director's office.
Carter also represented a granddaughter hoping to stay in her deceased grandfather's home, which she had lived in for several years. The client's domestic partner paid $2,500 to Carter. The client, client's domestic partner, and domestic partner's mother attempted to contact Carter several times and either did not receive a response or received a response but no further follow-up. Finally, the domestic partner's mother told Carter, "we would just like to get the retainer back." A month after this email, the client received papers from the executor's attorney saying that she needed to sign an agreement to purchase the home or that it would be listed for sale. Again, the domestic partner's mother asked Carter "Please call one of us!" but did not hear back. The client later learned that Carter was suspended from a third-party. Eventually, Carter did send the money back, along with a letter of the law license suspension and informed her that he would terminate his representation of her.
In another case outlined in the petition, two clients who gave Carter a $1,000 retainer fee payment were named defendants in a mechanics lien matter. When Carter received a discovery request, he failed to complete or submit responses. Carter was served with a motion to compel the clients to respond to overdue discovery requests, but Carter did not discuss the ongoing discovery dispute with his clients. After the court ordered that defendants provide discovery responses, and ordered the clients to pay $830 for attorney fees and expenses incurred in compelling compliance with discovery, Carter once again did not inform clients or submit responses to the overdue discovery requests. A pretrial hearing came and went, which clients were unaware of and Carter did not attend. Finally, the clients learned from a third-party that their case was scheduled for later the same day. After one of the clients contacted Carter, Carter told them he was unable to handle the case and was terminating representation immediately. Carter also failed to return the unearned fees.
Carter also represented a man in a criminal matter. According to the OLPR petition, the man's mother paid Carter a $2,500 flat fee retainer, which was not put into trust. Carter asked that the matter be continued due to his own health issues, but did not consult with the client about the continuance. After a review hearing, Carter's client contacted him to seek changes to his conditions of release. Carter did not respond to the request to communicate. The client filed correspondence to the court and identified himself as a self-represented litigant. Eventually, the client was appointed a public defender. Carter did not refund the unearned fees.
Effective 14 days from a June 6, 2023, order, Carter was suspended from the practice of law for a minimum of six months. Carter unconditionally admitted the allegations of the petition, which included: revealing a prospective client's confidential information without authorization, making derogatory statements about an opposing party that had no relevance to the matter, representing a client despite a conflict of interest with a prospective client, failing to deposit and maintain in trust unearned client funds in three matter, and knowingly making false statements to a client, an unrepresented party, and the OLPR director. Additionally, Carter, who was arrested for driving while impaired, allegedly made a statement implying an ability to influence a government official in the context of this arrest.
Carter was admitted to practice law in Minnesota in 1988. Prior to the 2023 suspension, Carter was admonished four times and stipulated to private probation one. He was admonished in 2005 for entering an improper business transaction with a client. In 2018, Carter was admonished for engaging in an improper ex parte communication with a court about a pending criminal case's merits. He also e-filed a letter about the prosecutor in which he hypothesized about marital infidelity and suggested anger-management counseling. Carter was admonished in 2020 for not depositing an unearned advance fee into a trust account and not communicating to the client the basis or rate of the fee. In 2021, Carter was admonished for not timely apprising his client of the court of appeals' rejection of his writ filing, not providing his client with information necessary to make an informed decision about the future course of representation, and disclosing confidential client information to opposing counsel following termination. Carter stipulated to private probation in 2014 for two years due to, among many things, making a threatening and harassing statement to a client after the client complained to the OLPR director.