In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Houge

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that the “clear and convincing evidence” standard requires a “a high probability that the facts are true”
• stating that a breach of the duties of honesty and integrity to the court “warrants severe discipline.”
• affirming that respondent violated in part Rules 3.3(a)(1), 4.1, 8.4(c) and (d), MRPC
• suspending an attorney for minimum of two years when the attorney assisted a client in fraudulent conduct, knowingly made false statements to court, knowingly offered false evidence, failed to supervise an assistant, and ratified an assistant’s unethical conduct
• “In the face of the findings against him, [respondent] maintains that he did no wrong and has not expressed remorse.”
• indefinite suspension from practice of law for assisting a client in creating a sham employment agreement that resulted in client’s probation sentence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).