In re Disciplinary Action Against Crosby
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 2017, 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
4 later published cases cite this decision.
- In re Disciplinary Action Against Glasser (Minn. 2013)
- In re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Brian James ENGEL, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 299790 (Minn. 2015)
- In re Disciplinary Action Against Bonner (Minn. 2017)
- In re Reinstatement of Crosby (Minn. 2013)
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
WHEREAS, the Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility has filed a petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent Anthony D. Crosby has committed professional conduct warranting public discipline, namely engaging in and pleading guilty to theft by swindle; and
WHEREAS, respondent has waived his rights pursuant to Rule 14, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR); has withdrawn his answer to the petition and unconditionally admits the allegations of the petition; and has entered into a stipulation with the Director in which they jointly recommend a 3-year suspension from the practice of law, with the reinstatement hearing pursuant to Rule 18, RLPR, not waived; and any reinstatement farther conditioned upon payment of costs of $900 pursuant to Rule 24(d), RLPR; compliance with Rule 26, RLPR; successful completion of the professional responsibility examination pursuant to Rule 18(e), RLPR; and satisfaction of the continuing legal education requirements pursuant to Rule 18(e), RLPR; and
WHEREAS, this court has independently reviewed the record and has determined that the appropriate discipline under the circumstances is a suspension from practice for 5 years with reinstatement conditioned upon the terms agreed to by the parties,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent Anthony D. Crosby is suspended from the practice of 'law for a period of 5 years, effective 10 days from the date of this order, ■with any reinstatement subject to the stipulated conditions set out above.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that either party may, within 10 days of this order, file a written request for withdrawal of the stipulation as modified and a second referral to a referee for further proceedings; upon such application, this order will be deemed withdrawn.
BY THE COURT:
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. I would have rejected the stipulation because I believe respondent’s misconduct warrants disbarment.
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting).
I join in the dissent of Justice PAGE.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.