Minnesota Supreme Court, 1979

In re the Discipline of Ray

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided January 2, 1979

275 N.W.2d 32; 1979 Minn. LEXIS 1355 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

R. Walter Bachman, Jr., Administrative Director on Professional Conduct, Lawyers Professional Responsibility Bd., St. Paul, for petitioner., Thomson & Nordby and Jack S. Nordby, St. Paul, for respondent.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1987, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Matter of Discipline of Ray (Minn. 1987)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

ORDER

The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before the court on the petition of the Administrative Director on Professional Conduct for the discipline of Paul H. Ray and on the stipulation of the parties.

The court, having heard the statements of the parties, and it appearing that Mr. Ray is an attorney admitted to the practice of law in the State of Minnesota, that Mr. Ray has admitted violations of DR 1-. 102(A)(3), (4), (5) and (6), DR 2-106(A), DR 6-101(A)(3), and DR 9-102(A) and (B) of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and that. Mr. Ray was placed on supervised probation for one year by the order of this court of November 20, 1970, for violations of a similar nature;

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that Paul H. Ray is suspended indefinitely from the practice of law in the State of Minnesota, and that on or after December 14, 1979, this court will consider his petition for reinstatement to practice upon application by Mr. Ray and demonstration by him that he could be so reinstated subject to such conditions or limitations that the public interest would be furthered and the possibility of prejudice to the public eliminated.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.