In the Matter of the Discipline of LaJeunesse (office of Professional Conduct v LaJeunesse)

Office appealed the dismissal of their petition for discipline. The Court affirmed. While noting Office’s briefing was inadequate, the court analyzed the decision below as part of its responsibility for attorney discipline. It held that the district court correctly ruled that LaJeunesse was acting in a quasi-judicial role as supervising administrative law judge when he adopted a policy of allowing other ALJs to require medical panel to make changes to conform to LeJeunesse’s view on certain statutory requirements (the Court declined to rule on whether that view was correct), the policy was adopted in good faith, discipline under rule of professional responsibility 8.4(d) for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice  covers acts such as suborning perjury or tampering with evidence but does not extend to a lawyer  offering an opinion on unresolved questions of law and this rule is consistent  with the rule used in similar circumstances in the judicial discipline setting.