In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against John August Krueger, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 211503.

Annotate this Case
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against John August Krueger, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 211503. A04-303, Supreme Court Order, September 2, 2004.

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN SUPREME COURT

A04-303

 

In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against

John August Krueger, a Minnesota Attorney,

Registration No. 211503.

 

O R D E R

 

            By order filed July 12, 2004, this court suspended respondent John August Krueger for 30 days, effective July 27, 2004.  The suspension order authorized reinstatement by affidavit under Rule 18(f), Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility.  Respondent has filed an affidavit stating that he has complied with the conditions imposed by the court and requests reinstatement.  The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility has filed with this court an affidavit certifying that respondent has complied with the terms of the suspension order and that the Director's Office does not object to reinstatement.

            Based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein,

            IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent John August Krueger is reinstated to the practice of law in the State of Minnesota effective August 26, 2004, subject to two years supervised probation as provided in this court's July 12, 2004, order and subject to his satisfactory completion of the professional responsibility portion of the state bar examination by July 12, 2005.

            Dated:   August 24, 2004

 

                                                                                    BY THE COURT:

 

                                            /s/                                                      

 

                                                                                    Paul H. Anderson

                                                                                    Associate Justice

 

 

 

 

 

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.