Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility

Áreas de Práctica

Acerca de

The Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility (OLPR) is an independent agency of the Minnesota Supreme Court, tasked with regulating lawyers in Minnesota. It investigates and prosecutes complaints of unprofessional conduct against attorneys, ensuring their activities conform to the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct. The OLPR also offers an advisory opinion service for lawyers on ethical practice.

Según el sitio web del despacho

Abogados

• Binh T. Tuong — Acting Director
• Joseph A. Ambroson — Assistant Director
• Krista D. Barrie — Managing Attorney
• Karin K. Ciano — Senior Assistant Director
• Alan B. Goldfarb — Senior Assistant Director
• Caitlin Guilford — Assistant Director
• Joanna Labastida — Senior Assistant Director
• Deanna N. Natoli — Senior Assistant Director
• Jennifer M. Novak — Assistant Director
• Amanda Siefman — Assistant Director
• David Watson — Assistant Director
• Maggie Skelton — Senior Assistant Director

Oficinas

• Minnesota Judicial Center, Suite 105, 25 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., St. Paul, MN 55155

Fuente: olpr.mncourts.gov · consultado el 22 de octubre de 2026. Lawyers Near Me no ha verificado estos datos de forma independiente.

Horario de Atención

Lunes

8 AM–4:30 PM

Martes

8 AM–4:30 PM

Miércoles

8 AM–4:30 PM

Jueves

8 AM–4:30 PM

Viernes

8 AM–4:30 PM

Sábado

Closed

Domingo

Closed

• Nacole Rae Hause· vía Google

  There was a fake court hearing they said my father attended, we had objected and he was not there—anything to rake up billable hours. They had 7 attorneys charging billable hours for false stories fabricated by unethical attorneys. They did nothing and I would recommend jail time.

  2 years ago
• Nebula· vía Google

  OLPR and LPRB Are Failing the Public and Protecting Dishonest Attorneys!!! My experience with the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility (OLPR) and the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board (LPRB) has been deeply disappointing, infuriating, and alarming. These agencies, which are supposed to uphold ethical standards in the legal profession, have completely failed in their duty to protect the public from dishonest attorneys like Colby B. Lund. Here's what happened: Colby B. Lund, a senior attorney, blatantly and deliberately altered the language in a legal settlement agreement, changing "cannot be deemed" to "can be deemed" (see attached photo). This wasn't an innocent mistake, it was a calculated and intentional attempt to create a false threat and manipulate the situation. Even kids know that lying is wrong, but a so-called professional attorney thought he could blatantly lie and get away with it. How does someone like this still hold a license? I filed a complaint with the OLPR because Colby B. Lund's actions clearly violated Rule 8.4(c) (Misconduct) and Rule 4.1 (Truthfulness in Statements to Others). Despite the detailed evidence I provided, OLPR dismissed my complaint without even bothering to investigate. Their excuse? Lund apologized. Let's be clear: an apology does not absolve accountability or erase wrongdoing. The focus should not be on whether Lund apologized but on the fact that he knowingly lied and violated professional ethics. To put it simply, just as a murderer is still held accountable for their actions regardless of an apology, so too must Colby B. Lund be held accountable for his deliberate misconduct. It is up to me, as the injured party, to decide whether to accept an apology, but it is the OLPR's duty to investigate and act on such clear violations. Their dismissal is baseless and irresponsible. Hoping for a fair review, I appealed to the LPRB. Unfortunately, they only made things worse. Not only did they rubber-stamp OLPR's d

  a year ago
• Rebecca· vía Google

  Our family has been given different interpretations of MN licensure law governing legal representation for persons in the state by two different lawyers. We reached out to the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility and reached a receptionist who kept asking what the question was while cutting off the attempts to explain the question. She actually called back responding to a message that explained the question already and let me know she hadn't listened to the message before calling back. We were told the only recourse was to file a formal complaint against one of the lawyers to get general guidance on which is correctly interpreting who can advise on contracts in the state of MN. This may be outside of the scope of this office but the demeanor and behavior of this receptionist is unbecoming of someone in this role. I hope I never actually need to file a complaint as I have no confidence that I would receive support from this instutition.

  10 months ago
• Kellye Sundar· vía Google

  Updated Review: The OLPR historically operates on a model that protects the institutional status quo from accountability, previously misrepresenting facts and ignoring clear misconduct in my files. However, when recently presented with an extreme, indisputable violation: an attorney pocketing a retainer and abandoning a disabled client 24 hours before a major jurisdictional deadline, they actually stepped up. Unlike past experiences, the office properly assessed the emergency, opened a formal investigation, and treated the structural severity of the claim with the appropriate gravitas. While systemic passivity remains an issue, they proved that when faced with undeniable, documented exploitation, they will execute their oversight duties properly.

  Edited 3 months ago
• J MP· vía Google

  The Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility and the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board describe themselves as protecting the public from attorney misconduct. In my experience, the process functions the opposite way: it protects attorneys from the public. I filed complaints backed by documented evidence — a public, undisclosed financial relationship between a court-appointed neutral and a mandated service provider; an attorney's repeated exclusion of a registered e-filer from court service followed by a false certificate of service; sworn admissions in the record. Each complaint was closed "without investigation." The recurring rationale was that these were "matters for the court" — even though the court proceedings that could establish misconduct were themselves what the complaints concerned, and even though OLPR is supposed to be the body equipped to evaluate rule violations in the first place. This creates a closed loop: the court won't rule on attorney ethics because that's OLPR's job, and OLPR won't investigate because it says that's the court's job. No one actually reviews the conduct. Appeals fare no better — they're affirmed with boilerplate language that doesn't engage the specific legal arguments raised, even when a written request for point-by-point findings is made in advance. If you are a member of the public relying on this system to hold attorneys accountable, understand that the burden of proof appears to be effectively insurmountable, and the process is structured to close files, not open investigations. This is not consumer protection. It is a gatekeeping function that shields the profession from scrutiny.

  2 months ago