FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OCTOBER 26, 2023 STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2023 ND 204

In the Matter of Reciprocal Discipline of Timothy P. Hill, a Member of the Bar of the State of North Dakota

No. 20230296

Recommendation for Reciprocal Discipline.

REPRIMAND ORDERED.

Per Curiam.

[¶1] On August 28, 2023, the Disciplinary Board notified the Supreme Court under N.D.R. Lawyer Discpl. 4.4(D) that it was recommending the reciprocal discipline of Timothy P. Hill. The record reflects that the State of Minnesota filed an order suspending Hill for 12 months for failing to place flat fees into a trust account when Hill did not have a fee agreement compliant under Minnesota law. [¶2] Disciplinary Counsel served Hill notice under N.D.R. Lawyer Discipl. 4.4(B) that a certified copy of the order of the Minnesota Supreme Court was received. The notice informed Hill that he had 30 days to file any claim that imposition of the identical discipline in North Dakota would be unwarranted and the reasons for the claim. Hill responded asserting that identical discipline should not be imposed in North Dakota, arguing the misconduct warrants substantially different discipline in this state. On August 9, 2023, the Disciplinary Board and Hill entered into a “Stipulation of Consent to Discipline.” The Disciplinary Board, Disciplinary Counsel, and Hill agreed that

1 based on the differences in North Dakota’s practice, rule language, and the factors considered for the purposes of imposing sanctions, the misconduct at issue would warrant substantially different discipline within this state. [¶3] With regard to handling a flat fee agreement, the practice in North Dakota at the time of the underlying representations differed from Minnesota. Rule 1.5, N.D.R. Prof. Conduct was amended, effective July 1, 2023, to reflect practice of flat fee agreements and this Court’s decision in Disciplinary Board v. Hoffman, 2013 ND 137, 834 N.W.2d 636 regarding this issue. The Court agrees that not all conduct considered misconduct in Minnesota would be misconduct in North Dakota. Additionally, the Court agrees that the misconduct at issue would warrant substantially different discipline in North Dakota. [¶4] The Court considered the matter, and [¶5] ORDERED that Timothy P. Hill is REPRIMANDED. [¶6] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte Douglas A. Bahr

2