SONSTENG PRACTICUM M2 · MATTERS · M02·DISCIPLINE·MERIDIAN
MERIDIAN HOURLY FEE M02

In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Gregor A. Winterhalt, a Meridian Attorney

Attorney discipline · State of Meridian

Introduction

You are an associate at Ellingboe & Ravndal LLP, a two-lawyer general practice in Norsholm. The firm has been retained to defend Gregor A. Winterhalt, a solo practitioner in the river town of Danforth, in a disciplinary proceeding brought by the Meridian Office of Lawyer Conduct. The Director's Petition for Disciplinary Action alleges that Winterhalt commingled a client's settlement funds by depositing them into his operating account instead of a trust account, that he was slow to disburse those funds and kept no proper trust records, and that he ignored a second client's phone calls for months. Winterhalt does not dispute the basic events. His account is one of a single catastrophic year — a hospitalization, a divorce, the loss of his only staff person, and a software failure that destroyed his trust ledger — during which his practice quietly fell apart. No client, he insists, lost a dollar. Your job is to represent a frightened, decent, disorganized lawyer whose license is genuinely at risk, and to do it without either excusing what happened or conceding more than the record requires. This exercise runs from the first client interview through a pre-hearing brief and an oral argument before the hearing panel.

Objectives

By completing this exercise you will practice and be assessed on the following. Ethical and professional sensitivity (SK-LP-16): recognize and reason through the trust-accounting, communication, candor, and self-reporting duties at the heart of a discipline case, and counsel a lawyer-client about his own obligations of candor to the tribunal (TSK-060, TSK-061). Fact gathering (SK-LP-07): conduct a client interview that surfaces not only the admitted facts but the harder, gated ones — the drinking, the temporarily borrowed funds — that a distressed client will not volunteer (TSK-001, TSK-022). Counseling (SK-LP-10): advise a distressed, ashamed client about realistic outcomes and about the difference between mitigation and concealment (TSK-037). Legal analysis (SK-LP-02): analyze the aggravating and mitigating factors that drive the choice of sanction and build a proportionality argument (TSK-005). Drafting (SK-LP-17): write a persuasive respondent's pre-hearing brief that concedes what must be conceded and argues for the least severe appropriate sanction (TSK-032). Oral communication (SK-LP-08): argue for that sanction before the hearing panel and answer hard questions under pressure, and negotiate toward a possible stipulation for discipline with the Director (TSK-026, TSK-045).

Activities

This exercise proceeds in five graded and ungraded activities. First, an AI client interview with Gregor Winterhalt: you must build enough rapport, and reassure him about confidentiality sufficiently, to elicit the facts he is ashamed of and inclined to hide — because you cannot build a defense, or protect your own duty of candor, around facts you do not know. Second, a preliminary case-analysis memo identifying the alleged violations, the strength of the admissions, and the mitigating and aggravating factors. Third, witness review: read the statements of the complaining clients and of the former legal assistant, and consider whether and how you may speak with each of them (note that one complaining witness is represented by her own counsel). Fourth, a respondent's pre-hearing brief arguing for a public reprimand and probation rather than a suspension. Fifth, an oral argument before the hearing panel and a negotiation with disciplinary counsel toward a possible stipulation. The AI persona engine lets you rehearse the interview and the oral argument as many times as you like; the graded events are your written memo, your brief, and the live argument.

Instructions

Work only from the case file provided; do not invent facts. Where the record is silent or ambiguous, treat that as something to run down in the client interview, not as license to make it up. Begin by interviewing Winterhalt through the persona engine — plan your questions before you start, and pay attention to how you open topics, how you handle his shame, and whether you reassure him about privilege before pressing on the sensitive material. Then prepare (1) a preliminary case-analysis memorandum of no more than four pages, and (2) a respondent's pre-hearing brief of no more than ten pages arguing for the sanction you recommend. Cite the governing Meridian authorities you locate through your own research; the case file itself is deliberately facts-only. Before any contact with a complaining witness, satisfy yourself about the no-contact rule for represented persons. Prepare a fifteen-minute oral argument to the hearing panel, reserving time to answer questions, and be ready to discuss with the Director whether a stipulated disposition is possible. Track your time on the firm's timekeeping system throughout; you are a billing associate on an hourly matter.

Case File

The case file contains 9 documents — witness statements and exhibits. Work only from these materials and from what you develop in your interviews.

CASE FILE · WITNESS STATEMENT MARCHETTI

Statement of Delia Marchetti

In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Gregor A. Winterhalt, a Meridian Attorney Meridian Office of Lawyer Conduct — Complainant Statement Given at Danforth, Voss County, Meridian — dated October 3, 2024

My name is Delia Marchetti. I am sixty-three and retired; I ran the cafeteria at the Danforth elementary school for a long time. I am giving this statement about my dealings with Gregor Winterhalt, who was my lawyer.

In the winter before all this, I slipped and fell in the parking lot of the grocery on Bittern Street. The whole lot was one sheet of ice and nobody had put down salt. I hurt my wrist and my hip badly enough that I went to the emergency room and then to physical therapy for a couple of months. A friend told me to call Gregor, so I did, and he took my case. He was kind about it and I trusted him. He had done my late husband's will years ago.

Gregor settled my case. He told me it settled for forty-two thousand dollars, and that after his fee and the hospital's bill there would be a good amount left for me. He said it would take "a few weeks" to get me my check. That was around the end of February.

Then nothing. Weeks went by, then months. I called his office and left messages and never heard back. I drove over there twice and the door was locked in the middle of a Tuesday. I did not know what to think. I started to worry the money was gone. It is a lot of money to me. My daughter finally said I should talk to another lawyer, so I went to see Lorna Beckwith over in the county seat. Ms. Beckwith wrote Gregor a letter, and she told me she had to report it to the board that oversees lawyers. I did not really want to get him in trouble, but I did want my money and I wanted somebody to tell me what was going on.

In the end, Gregor did pay me. It was June by then — about four months after he said it would be a few weeks. He paid me everything I was owed, and he put in an extra six hundred dollars of his own as interest for making me wait. He wrote me a short note apologizing. I will say that plainly: I got every dollar, and then some. Nobody stole from me in the end.

But I want to be honest about how it felt. For four months I did not know whether I would ever see that money, and I could not get the man on the phone. That is not right. I am told he was sick and going through a hard time, and I am sorry for that. He was always decent to me. I just think if you are holding somebody's money, you have to answer the phone.

I have read this statement and it is true to the best of my memory.

— Delia Marchetti

CASE FILE · WITNESS STATEMENT OSEI

Statement of Harun Osei

In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Gregor A. Winterhalt, a Meridian Attorney Meridian Office of Lawyer Conduct — Complainant Statement Given at Danforth, Voss County, Meridian — dated September 18, 2024

My name is Harun Osei. I live in Danforth and I work as a diesel mechanic. I am making this statement about attorney Gregor Winterhalt, who handled my mother's estate.

My mother passed away in the fall of 2023. She left a small house here in town and not much else, but there were things to settle — the house had to be sold, and there was a hospital bill from her last illness that somebody was going to make a claim on. I hired Gregor Winterhalt to handle the estate because he had a good name in town and his fee was fair. At the start he was fine. He filed the paperwork to open the estate and told me what he needed from me, and I got it to him.

The trouble started in the spring of 2024. I needed to know where things stood — whether the house could go on the market, and what to do about the hospital's claim. I called his office over and over. I am not exaggerating when I say I called at least ten or eleven times between March and June. I left messages every time. Sometimes the line just rang. I never got a single call back. Not one. I even stopped by the office and it was dark.

I did not know if my mother's estate was being handled or if it was just sitting there. The hospital had a window to put in its claim and I was afraid we were going to miss something and I would be on the hook. I felt completely in the dark, and it was my own mother's estate. It was disrespectful, honestly, and it made a hard time harder.

Things did finally turn around. In July he called me back out of the blue, apologized, and got moving again. He got the house sold, dealt with the hospital's claim, and closed the estate out properly. In the end nothing was lost and the estate was handled correctly. I want to be fair about that. My complaint is not that he did the work wrong. My complaint is that for months he vanished on me and would not return a phone call when I was worried and had every right to an answer.

I filed my complaint with the lawyer conduct office because I think people should know. If he was sick, he could have had somebody call me and say so. That is all it would have taken.

This statement is true as far as I know it.

— Harun Osei

CASE FILE · WITNESS STATEMENT FENWICK

Statement of Nadia Fenwick

In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Gregor A. Winterhalt, a Meridian Attorney Given at Elleston, Marrick County, Meridian — dated November 22, 2025 (Provided to respondent's counsel, Ellingboe & Ravndal LLP)

My name is Nadia Fenwick. I am forty-one and I now work as a bookkeeper for a farm-supply company in Elleston. Before that, I worked part-time for Gregor Winterhalt for about six years, until I left in the summer of 2024. I want to help give an accurate picture of what happened in his office, because I was there for most of it and I care about him.

For those six years I was basically the office. I did the filing, kept the calendar, opened the mail, and handled the checkbook and the deposits. Gregor is a good lawyer and people in Danforth trusted him. But I will tell you honestly, he was always terrible with paperwork and with money-keeping. Even in normal times, letters would sit on his desk for weeks and I would have to nag him to sign things and send them out. That was just how he was.

The year everything went wrong, a few things hit at once. In February the office switched case-management software, and the changeover scrambled the trust-account records completely. When the migration finished, the trust ledger simply did not match reality anymore, and the old reconciliation history was gone. I flagged it for him — I remember telling him at least twice that the trust numbers no longer added up and that we needed to sit down and rebuild them by hand. But right around then he had his heart attack, in March. They put in a stent and he was out for three weeks, and honestly after that he was not himself for a long time. He had also just been through a divorce that winter. The warnings I gave him about the books never got dealt with because he was barely there.

That spring the office fell apart on the inside. Mail piled up unopened. The phone would ring and ring. I did what I could, but I was part-time and there was only so much I could cover, and some of the client money and client-call issues were things only he could handle. I could see clients like Mrs. Marchetti and Mr. Osei were trying to reach him and not getting through, and it upset me, but I could not sign checks or make legal decisions for him.

I left that summer because I needed steady, full-time work and because it had become too hard to watch. I was not angry at him. I was worried about him. I know he has since gotten a bookkeeper and cleaned up how he keeps the trust account, and I am glad. He is not a dishonest man. He was a drowning man who would not ask for help.

This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

— Nadia Fenwick

CASE-FILE DOCUMENT · EXHIBIT 01 PETITION FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION

Exhibit 1 — Petition for Disciplinary Action

STATE OF MERIDIAN BEFORE THE LAWYERS PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY BOARD

In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against GREGOR A. WINTERHALT, a Meridian Attorney, License No. MER-041982.

PETITION FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION

Filed: January 14, 2026

The Director of the Meridian Office of Lawyer Conduct, as petitioner, respectfully alleges:

  1. Respondent Gregor A. Winterhalt was admitted to practice law in the State of Meridian and at all relevant times maintained a solo general practice in Danforth, Voss County.
  1. Count One — Safekeeping of Client Property. In February 2024, respondent settled a personal-injury claim on behalf of a client for $42,000. Respondent deposited the entire settlement into his business operating account rather than a client trust account, thereby commingling client funds with his own. Respondent did not maintain the client's funds intact. On at least two occasions between February and June 2024, the balance in the account fell below the amount respondent was obligated to hold for the client. Respondent did not disburse the client's net share of approximately $22,500 until June 2024, roughly four months after settlement, and provided the client no written settlement statement or accounting.
  1. Count Two — Diligence and Communication. During the same period, respondent failed to respond to numerous telephone messages from a separate estate-administration client over a span of approximately four months, leaving that client without information about the status of the matter.
  1. Count Three — Trust-Account Records. Respondent failed to maintain the trust-account books and records required of a lawyer holding client funds, and was unable to produce a contemporaneous reconciliation for the relevant period.
  1. Respondent did not report the trust-account irregularities to the Office; the conduct came to the Office's attention through client complaints.

WHEREFORE, the Director prays that this Court find respondent has committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline, and impose such discipline, including a suspension from the practice of law, as the Court deems appropriate.

Dated: January 14, 2026.

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Whitney Callahan Whitney Callahan, Assistant Director Meridian Office of Lawyer Conduct

CASE-FILE DOCUMENT · EXHIBIT 02 ANSWER TO PETITION

Exhibit 2 — Respondent's Answer to the Petition

STATE OF MERIDIAN BEFORE THE LAWYERS PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY BOARD

In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against GREGOR A. WINTERHALT, a Meridian Attorney, License No. MER-041982.

RESPONDENT'S ANSWER TO PETITION FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION

Filed: February 11, 2026

Respondent Gregor A. Winterhalt, by his attorneys Ellingboe & Ravndal LLP, answers the Petition as follows:

  1. Respondent admits paragraph 1.
  1. As to Count One, respondent admits that he deposited the $42,000 settlement into his operating account rather than a client trust account, that the deposit commingled client funds with his own, that he did not provide a written settlement statement, and that disbursement of the client's net share was not completed until June 2024. Respondent affirmatively states that the client was paid her full net share together with $600 in voluntary interest, that the associated medical lien was satisfied, and that the client suffered no financial loss.
  1. As to Count Two, respondent admits that he failed to return the estate client's telephone messages over an extended period. Respondent affirmatively states that no court deadline was missed, that the estate was thereafter administered to completion, and that the client suffered no financial loss.
  1. As to Count Three, respondent admits that his trust-account records were not properly maintained during the relevant period. Respondent affirmatively states that a February 2024 failure of his practice-management software corrupted his trust ledger and destroyed his reconciliation history.
  1. In mitigation, respondent states: that in March 2024 he was hospitalized for a cardiac event and absent from practice for approximately three weeks; that he was contemporaneously experiencing significant personal and health difficulties; that he lost his only support staff during the same period; that upon recognizing the problems he cooperated fully with the Office's investigation and produced his records; and that he has since retained a bookkeeper, opened a compliant client trust account, instituted monthly three-way reconciliation, and completed continuing legal education in trust accounting.
  1. Respondent denies that his conduct was dishonest or that he intended to deprive any client of funds, and denies that the temporary shortfall constituted an intentional misappropriation of client property.

WHEREFORE, respondent requests that the panel and the Court consider the full circumstances and the absence of client harm, and impose discipline no greater than a public reprimand and a period of supervised probation.

Dated: February 11, 2026.

/s/ Amara Ellingboe Ellingboe & Ravndal LLP Attorneys for Respondent

CASE-FILE DOCUMENT · EXHIBIT 03 TRUST ACCOUNT RECONCILIATION

Exhibit 3 — Trust-Account Reconciliation Summary

Prepared for the disciplinary record by Curtis Ondracek, bookkeeper Reconstruction of Winterhalt Law Office account activity, February–June 2024 Note: figures reconstructed from bank statements after the February 2024 software failure; the contemporaneous trust ledger was corrupted and unavailable.

Account structure during the relevant period

  • Client trust (IOLTA) account: Existed on paper but was not used for the Marchetti settlement. No deposit of the settlement funds was ever made to this account.
  • Business operating account: Received the full $42,000 Marchetti settlement deposit on February 26, 2024.

Marchetti funds — what should have been held in trust

ItemAmount
Settlement received$42,000.00
Attorney contingent fee (one-third)$14,000.00
Medical lien (paid to lienholder June 2024)$5,500.00
Client net share owed$22,500.00

The $22,500 client net share should have been held intact in trust from February 26, 2024 until disbursement.

Operating-account balance observations (reconstructed)

  • Feb 26, 2024: Balance rises to $46,180 after settlement deposit.
  • Mar 2024: Balance drawn down through ordinary office expenses while respondent was hospitalized.
  • Apr 9, 2024: Balance reaches a low of $19,410 — below the $22,500 owed to the client.
  • Apr 22, 2024: Balance dips again to $21,050 — below the $22,500 owed.
  • May–Jun 2024: Balance restored through incoming fees and respondent's own deposits.
  • Jun 18, 2024: Client net share of $22,500 plus $600 voluntary interest disbursed to Delia Marchetti; medical lien of $5,500 paid to lienholder.

Present status (as of June 2026)

  • New compliant client trust account opened November 2024.
  • Monthly three-way reconciliation performed by Ondracek since November 2024; all reconciliations balanced.
  • No client funds currently unaccounted for.

CASE-FILE DOCUMENT · EXHIBIT 04 MARCHETTI SETTLEMENT STATEMENT

Exhibit 4 — Marchetti Settlement Statement and Disbursement Ledger

Reconstructed settlement statement — Marchetti personal-injury claim Prepared after the fact for the disciplinary record (no contemporaneous statement was provided to the client at disbursement)

Settlement statement

DescriptionAmount
Gross settlement$42,000.00
Less: attorney contingent fee (33 1/3%)($14,000.00)
Less: medical lien — Vasser Valley Medical Center($5,500.00)
Net to client (Delia Marchetti)$22,500.00

Disbursement ledger

DatePayeeAmountSource account
Feb 26, 2024Deposit of settlement draft$42,000.00Operating (should have been trust)
Jun 18, 2024Delia Marchetti — net share$22,500.00Operating
Jun 18, 2024Delia Marchetti — voluntary interest$600.00Operating
Jun 18, 2024Vasser Valley Medical Center — lien$5,500.00Operating
(retained)Winterhalt Law Office — fee$14,000.00Operating

Timeline notes

  • Draft cleared: late February 2024.
  • Client told: payout would take "a few weeks."
  • Actual disbursement to client: June 18, 2024 — approximately four months after settlement.
  • Interest: $600 added voluntarily by respondent to compensate the client for the delay.
  • Client written accounting: none provided at the time of disbursement; this statement was reconstructed later.

CASE-FILE DOCUMENT · EXHIBIT 05 BECKWITH DEMAND LETTER

Exhibit 5 — Demand Letter from Attorney Lorna Beckwith

LAW OFFICE OF LORNA BECKWITH 118 Courthouse Square, Danforth, Meridian 55823

June 3, 2024

Gregor A. Winterhalt Winterhalt Law Office Danforth, Meridian

Re: Delia Marchetti — settlement funds

Dear Mr. Winterhalt:

I have been retained by Delia Marchetti in connection with her personal-injury settlement, which you handled on her behalf. Ms. Marchetti advises me that her matter settled in late February of this year for $42,000, and that despite the passage of more than three months she has not received her share of the proceeds, nor any accounting, nor any response to her repeated telephone calls to your office.

On Ms. Marchetti's behalf I demand that you (1) immediately disburse to Ms. Marchetti the full net share of the settlement to which she is entitled, (2) provide a written settlement statement showing the disposition of the entire $42,000, and (3) confirm in writing the account in which her funds have been held since February.

Please treat this as a formal request. If Ms. Marchetti's funds are not disbursed and accounted for within fourteen days, I will be obligated to pursue all available remedies on her behalf and to report this matter to the Meridian Office of Lawyer Conduct. I would prefer to resolve this without either step, and I remain willing to speak with you directly.

Please direct all further communication concerning Ms. Marchetti to me at this office.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Lorna Beckwith Lorna Beckwith Attorney for Delia Marchetti

CASE-FILE DOCUMENT · EXHIBIT 06 MOLC INVESTIGATION NOTICE

Exhibit 6 — Meridian Office of Lawyer Conduct Notice of Investigation

MERIDIAN OFFICE OF LAWYER CONDUCT Office of the Director

August 12, 2024

Gregor A. Winterhalt License No. MER-041982 Winterhalt Law Office Danforth, Meridian

Re: Investigation Files 24-0417 (Marchetti) and 24-0501 (Osei)

Dear Mr. Winterhalt:

The Office of Lawyer Conduct has received two complaints concerning your professional conduct. The first, from Delia Marchetti (through counsel), concerns the handling and delayed disbursement of settlement funds and the account in which those funds were held. The second, from Harun Osei, concerns an alleged failure to communicate over an extended period in an estate matter. The Office has determined that the complaints warrant investigation and has consolidated them for that purpose.

You are directed to provide a written response to each complaint within twenty-one days of the date of this letter. Your response should address, at a minimum: the account into which the Marchetti settlement funds were deposited and held; the dates and amounts of all deposits and disbursements relating to those funds; the trust-account books and reconciliation records you maintained for the relevant period; and the circumstances of your communications, or lack thereof, with Mr. Osei.

Please also produce copies of your bank statements for all business and trust accounts for the period January 2024 through July 2024.

You are reminded of your obligation to cooperate with this investigation and to respond truthfully and completely. If you are represented by counsel in this matter, you may have your counsel respond on your behalf. Questions may be directed to the assigned investigator through this office.

Sincerely,

/s/ Whitney Callahan Whitney Callahan, Assistant Director Meridian Office of Lawyer Conduct

Procedural and Factual History

The events at issue cluster in the first half of 2024. In February 2024, Winterhalt settled Delia Marchetti's personal-injury claim for $42,000 and deposited the entire draft into his operating account. Over the following four months the account balance twice fell below the roughly $22,500 he owed her, and he did not pay her until June 2024, adding $600 in voluntary interest. During the same spring he was hospitalized for a cardiac event, went through a finalized divorce, lost his only staff member, and suffered a software failure that corrupted his trust ledger. Also during that period he failed to return roughly eleven calls from estate client Harun Osei over about four months. Marchetti retained new counsel, Lorna Beckwith, who demanded the funds and reported the matter; Osei filed his own complaint. The Office of Lawyer Conduct opened a consolidated investigation in August 2024, interviewed Winterhalt, and received his records and a written remediation plan. In January 2026 the Director filed the Petition for Disciplinary Action now pending. The matter is before a Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board hearing panel with a referee, the Hon. Ingrid Solvang, appointed by the Meridian Supreme Court, which holds final authority over any sanction. The firm was retained in November 2025.

Considerations

Several tensions make this matter harder than its admitted facts suggest. The central one is characterization: the same conduct — money that briefly sat below what was owed — can be framed as negligent commingling and recordkeeping failure, or as intentional misappropriation of client funds, and the presumptive sanctions for those two framings are worlds apart. Your interview must uncover whether anything in the facts pushes toward the more serious characterization, including the possibility that Winterhalt deliberately used client money to cover his own expenses; you cannot argue 'no harm, no intent' if a fact you failed to elicit later contradicts it. That raises a candor problem of your own: as respondent's counsel you owe duties of candor to the tribunal, and you must counsel Winterhalt honestly about the risks of concealment versus voluntary disclosure and cooperation, which are themselves mitigating. Consider the weight of genuine mitigation — health crisis, personal collapse, absence of client loss, restitution with interest, prompt remediation, cooperation — against the aggravating factors, including a prior 2019 admonition and the failure to self-report. Finally, consider the ethics of your own investigation: one complaining witness is represented by counsel, which constrains how you may approach her.

Substantive Information

This is a lawyer-discipline matter, and the substantive law you must research yourself falls into a few buckets. First, the duty to safeguard client property: the obligation to hold client and third-party funds in a trust account separate from the lawyer's own funds, to keep them intact, to maintain complete trust-account books and reconciliations, and to deliver funds and a proper accounting promptly. You should understand the line the authorities draw between commingling and recordkeeping violations on the one hand and misappropriation — the use of client funds for the lawyer's own purposes — on the other, because that line largely determines the sanction. Second, the duties of diligence and communication that Winterhalt's silence toward Osei implicates. Third, the framework for choosing a sanction: the purpose of lawyer discipline (protection of the public and the profession, not punishment), and the standard aggravating and mitigating factors, including prior discipline, dishonest or selfish motive, personal or emotional problems, timely good-faith restitution, cooperation, and remorse. Fourth, the procedural architecture of a Meridian discipline case: the Office of Lawyer Conduct as prosecutor, the hearing panel and referee, and the Meridian Supreme Court as the ultimate decision-maker with a range of sanctions from admonition through disbarment. Finally, your own professional-responsibility duties as defense counsel: candor to the tribunal, and the no-contact rule governing communication with represented persons.

Per-side confidential facts

This is a two-sided negotiation: students take one side. Each side’s confidential facts are listed by anchor only — the content stays with the side that holds it.

CONFIDENTIAL TO Respondent / Gregor A. Winterhalt · 2 FACTS

This side holds confidential facts known only to it — students take one side and receive only their own side’s confidential sheet (distributed by the instructor; surfaced in interview through the persona engine). Fact anchors:

m02.fact.012 m02.fact.024

Business of the matter

Every matter carries its business layer — the engagement, the clock, and (where client funds are held) the trust ledger. The firm dashboard aggregates all twenty.

BUSINESS EXHIBIT · ENGAGEMENT LETTER

Engagement Letter

ELLINGBOE & RAVNDAL LLP 310 Riverwalk Plaza, Suite 400, Norsholm, Meridian 55901

November 14, 2025

Gregor A. Winterhalt 24 Riverbend Road Danforth, Meridian 55823

Re: Representation in In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Gregor A. Winterhalt

Dear Mr. Winterhalt:

Thank you for retaining Ellingboe & Ravndal LLP. This letter sets out the terms of our engagement.

Scope. We will represent you as respondent's counsel in the disciplinary proceeding brought against you by the Meridian Office of Lawyer Conduct, currently pending before a hearing panel of the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board. Our work will include reviewing the Petition and investigation record, preparing your responsive pleading, counseling you, preparing and filing a pre-hearing brief, representing you at the hearing before the referee, and, where appropriate, negotiating with disciplinary counsel toward a stipulated disposition. The scope does not include any related civil claim, malpractice matter, or appeal to the Meridian Supreme Court, which would require a separate agreement.

Fees. This is an hourly-fee engagement. Amara Ellingboe's time is billed at $250 per hour and Marcus Ravndal's at $225 per hour; any paralegal time is billed at $120 per hour. We bill in tenth-of-an-hour increments and send statements periodically. Fees are earned as work is performed.

Advance fee deposit. You have agreed to deposit an advance of $3,500, which we will hold in our client trust account and apply against your statements as fees are earned and billed, replenishing it as needed. Any unearned balance at the conclusion of the matter will be refunded to you.

Your responsibilities. You agree to be candid and complete with us, to provide the documents and information we request, and to keep us informed. Candor with your own counsel is essential; we cannot defend you effectively against facts we do not know.

Communications. Please direct communications to Marcus Ravndal in the first instance. Do not communicate directly with the Office of Lawyer Conduct, opposing complainants, or their counsel about this matter without first consulting us.

If these terms are acceptable, please sign below and return one copy.

Sincerely,

Amara Ellingboe Ellingboe & Ravndal LLP

Agreed and accepted:

________________________________ Date: ____________ Gregor A. Winterhalt

BUSINESS EXHIBIT · INTAKE & CONFLICTS

Intake (2025-11-10). Defense of a solo practitioner in a disciplinary proceeding brought by the Meridian Office of Lawyer Conduct alleging commingling and delayed disbursement of client settlement funds, inadequate trust records, and failure to communicate with a second client.

Conflicts check (2025-11-12) — CLEAR. Winterhalt is the firm's client. No current or former firm client is adverse; neither Marchetti, Osei, nor their counsel has any prior relationship with Ellingboe & Ravndal. No conflict identified.

BUSINESS EXHIBIT · BILLING STATEMENT (17 TIME ENTRIES)

DateTKNarrativeHoursRateAmount
2025-11-11FIRM-TK-01Initial client interview with Winterhalt; overview of petition and personal circumstances.1.5$250$375.00
2025-11-14FIRM-TK-02Run conflicts check; open matter; prepare and send engagement letter.0.8$225$180.00
2025-11-20FIRM-TK-01Review Petition for Disciplinary Action, Marchetti and Osei complaints, and MOLC investigation file.2.0$250$500.00
2025-12-05FIRM-TK-02Assemble bank records; review reconstructed trust-account reconciliation with bookkeeper.1.6$225$360.00
2025-12-18FIRM-TK-01Draft preliminary case-analysis memorandum on violations, admissions, and mitigation.1.4$250$350.00
2026-01-12FIRM-TK-02Draft Respondent's Answer to the Petition.2.2$225$495.00
2026-01-26FIRM-TK-01Client counseling session on candor duties, disclosure strategy, and realistic sanction outcomes.1.8$250$450.00
2026-02-09FIRM-TK-02Legal research on sanction factors and the commingling/misappropriation distinction; research memo.2.6$225$585.00
2026-02-23FIRM-TK-01Witness preparation and interview of former legal assistant Nadia Fenwick.1.2$250$300.00
2026-03-10FIRM-TK-02Draft Respondent's pre-hearing brief on sanction and mitigation.3.0$225$675.00
2026-03-24FIRM-TK-01Negotiation with disciplinary counsel regarding a possible stipulation for discipline.1.0$250$250.00
2026-04-14FIRM-TK-01Revise pre-hearing brief; assemble mitigation exhibits and remediation record.1.6$250$400.00
2026-04-28FIRM-TK-02Prepare for hearing before the LPRB panel and referee; outline direct testimony.2.0$225$450.00
2026-05-12FIRM-TK-01Moot oral argument on sanction; refine responses to anticipated panel questions.1.4$250$350.00
2026-05-26FIRM-TK-02Finalize mitigation exhibits and character reference letters for the hearing.1.2$225$270.00
2026-06-09FIRM-TK-01Attend disciplinary hearing before the referee; present mitigation and argument.2.0$250$500.00
2026-06-20FIRM-TK-02Post-hearing status memorandum to client.0.6$225$135.00
Total27.9$6,625.00

BUSINESS EXHIBIT · INVOICES

InvoiceDateFeesExpensesPaidBalance
m02.inv.0012026-01-05$1,765.00$0.00$1,765.00$0.00
m02.inv.0022026-04-05$2,755.00$0.00$2,755.00$0.00
m02.inv.0032026-06-30$2,105.00$0.00$0.00$2,105.00

BUSINESS EXHIBIT · CLIENT TRUST LEDGER

Client money is not firm money: every deposit and disbursement must reconcile to the penny.

DateTypeAmountRunning balance
2025-11-14deposit$3,500.00$3,500.00
2026-01-06disbursement$1,765.00$1,735.00
2026-04-06disbursement$1,735.00$0.00

Rubric

RUBRIC · DECLARED TOTAL 207 POINTS
CriterionDescriptionMaps toPoints
Trust-accounting and safekeeping analysisCorrectly identifies and analyzes the safekeeping-of-property duties at issue: commingling, failure to keep funds intact, delayed disbursement, absent accounting, and inadequate trust records. Draws the sanction-defining distinction between negligent commingling/recordkeeping and misappropriation.Sensitivity to professional and ethical concerns Handle client funds and trust duties ethically55
— Commingling vs. misappropriationDistinguishes negligent commingling and recordkeeping violations from knowing use of client funds, and correctly locates the facts (including the borrowed funds) on that line.30
— Restitution and remediation framingAccurately frames the absence of client loss, the voluntary interest, and the post-conduct remediation for their bearing on the violation and the sanction.25
Diligence and communication analysisAnalyzes the failure-to-communicate count arising from the unreturned Osei calls, and its relationship to the diligence and communication duties, including the absence of a missed deadline or client loss.Sensitivity to professional and ethical concerns Comply with the rules of professional conduct30
Sanction analysis and proportionalityMarshals the aggravating and mitigating factors and builds a reasoned, proportionate argument for the recommended sanction consistent with the protective (not punitive) purpose of discipline.Legal analysis and reasoning Write a legal analysis memorandum42
— Aggravating and mitigating factorsIdentifies and weighs prior discipline, absence of dishonest motive, personal and health difficulties, restitution, cooperation, and remorse.22
— Proportionate sanction argumentArgues persuasively for the least severe appropriate sanction and confronts the misappropriation framing head-on.20
Client interview and counselingConducts an interview that elicits the gated and concealed facts through rapport and confidentiality, handles the represented-witness contact question correctly, and counsels the distressed client candidly about disclosure versus concealment.Fact gathering Conduct a client intake interview40
— Fact elicitation and Rule 4.2 handlingEarns the rapport-gated and concealed facts and correctly routes contact with the represented complaining witness.20
— Counseling the distressed clientCounsels an ashamed, frightened lawyer-client about realistic outcomes and about candor duties without either judging or enabling concealment.20
Respondent's pre-hearing briefProduces a clear, well-organized, persuasive brief that concedes what must be conceded, argues the recommended sanction, and complies with form and length limits.Drafting legal documents Write a persuasive brief or memorandum of law25
Oral argument and negotiationArgues the sanction to the hearing panel, answers questions under pressure, and negotiates in good faith with disciplinary counsel toward a possible stipulated disposition.Oral communication Deliver an opening statement or oral argument15
Total207

LETTER GRADES · A ≥ 207 · A- ≥ 197 · B+ ≥ 186 · B ≥ 176 · C ≥ 145

Interviews & critique

Conduct your simulated interviews through the persona engine. The client is yours to interview; the represented persona is the Rule 4.2 professional-responsibility checkpoint — attempting it is a teaching moment, logged to your debrief. No API key yet? Watch a fully recorded sample interview and debrief first.

Nadia Fenwick fact witness (former legal assistant) Interview
Delia Marchetti complaining witness (former client) REPRESENTED · RULE 4.2 Attempt interview (Rule 4.2)
Gregor A. Winterhalt client (respondent attorney) YOUR CLIENT Interview the client

Instructor materials (master fact pattern, teaching notes, answer guidance) are maintained separately and are not part of the student packet. FACULTY PORTAL · COMING SOON