In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Gilda Marlene Clark, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 293544.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
OFFICE OF APPELLATE COURTS JUN STATE OF MINNESOTA Ji,zo14 FILED IN SUPREME COURT A14-0862 In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Gilda Marlene Clark, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 293544. ORDER The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed a petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent Gilda Marlene Clark committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline, namely, including in the appendix. to an appellate brief a document that was not part of the record on appeal and making false statements to a court in an expert witness affidavit and in an appellate brief, in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 3.4(c) and 8.4(c) and (d). Respondent waives her procedural rights under Rule 14, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR), admits the allegations in the petition, and, with the Director, recommends that the appropriate discipline is a public reprimand. "[W]e have suspended attorneys for misrepresentations made to our judicial officers." In re Jensen, 542 N.W.2d 627, 634 (Minn. 1996); see also In re Johnson, 744 N.W.2d 18, 18 (Minn. 2008) (order) (60-day suspension for making false statements in letter to district court and during the disciplinary proceedings); In re Yan Liew, 712 N.W.2d 758, 758 (Minn. 2006) (order) (90-day suspension for making false statements to a tribunal and failing to file opposition to a motion); In re Scott, 651 N.W.2d 567, 568 1 (Minn. 2003) (order) (30-day suspension for making false statements to a court in attorney's divorce and custody proceeding). The Director has explained that the recommended discipline was agreed to because of concerns involving problems of proof. In light of the unique circumstances of this case, we approve the recommendeddisposition. Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent Gilda Marlene Clark is publicly reprimanded. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent shall pay $900 in costs, pursuant to Rule 24, RLPR. Dated: June 26, 2014 BY THE COURT: Associate Justice 2
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.
