In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Delphine A. Karsgaard, a Minnesota Attorney

CASE-FILE DOCUMENT · PETITION FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION

Petition for Disciplinary Action

STATE OF MINNESOTA — IN SUPREME COURT

In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Delphine A. Karsgaard, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0[XXXXXX]

Filed: November 14, 2025

The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility, as petitioner, respectfully alleges:

1. Respondent Delphine A. Karsgaard was admitted to practice law in Minnesota and at all relevant times maintained a general practice known as Karsgaard Law Office.

1. In February 2024, Respondent undertook to represent Marguerite Dieterle in a premises-liability claim arising from a fall at a grocery store on January 20, 2024.

1. Respondent caused a summons and complaint to be filed in the Dieterle matter in May 2024. The deadline to complete service of the summons and complaint on the defendant and to file proof of service expired on August 13, 2024.

1. Service was never completed. On the defendant's motion, the district court dismissed the Dieterle action on October 2, 2024. The limitations period on the claim thereafter expired, and the claim was lost.

COUNT ONE — Neglect and Lack of Diligence

1. Respondent failed to complete service before the deadline, failed to monitor the status of the matter after her paralegal's departure at the end of June 2024, and failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing her client, causing the loss of the client's claim.

COUNT TWO — Candor to the Tribunal

1. On December 10, 2024, Respondent filed a motion to vacate the dismissal, supported by her sworn affidavit stating that she "first became aware of the failure of service on November 26, 2024."

1. That statement was false or misleading. Respondent received written notice from opposing counsel on September 18, 2024 that service had not been completed, and received the court's dismissal order on October 2, 2024. Respondent thereby made a false statement of material fact to a tribunal.

COUNT THREE — Supervisory Responsibility

1. Respondent failed to make reasonable efforts to ensure that her firm had in place measures giving reasonable assurance that the conduct of her non-lawyer staff, and the firm's calendaring and docketing systems, were compatible with her professional obligations, including the safeguarding of client deadlines.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Director prays that this Court find that Respondent committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline, and impose such discipline as the Court deems just, together with costs and disbursements.

Respectfully submitted,

Gideon Voss Senior Assistant Director Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility

CASE-FILE DOCUMENT · ANSWER TO PETITION

Respondent's Answer to Petition for Disciplinary Action

STATE OF MINNESOTA — IN SUPREME COURT

In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Delphine A. Karsgaard, a Minnesota Attorney

Filed: January 15, 2026 By respondent's counsel, Ellingboe & Ravndal LLP

Respondent Delphine A. Karsgaard, by and through her counsel, answers the Petition as follows:

1. Respondent admits she was admitted to practice in Minnesota and operated Karsgaard Law Office at the relevant times. She admits nineteen years of prior practice without any disciplinary history.

1. Respondent admits she undertook the Dieterle representation and admits the facts of the underlying fall as alleged.

1. Respondent admits the summons and complaint were filed in May 2024 and that the service deadline of August 13, 2024 was not met. Respondent admits the action was dismissed on October 2, 2024.

Answering Count One (Neglect): Respondent admits that the service deadline was missed and that this constituted a failure of diligence. Respondent states in explanation, not excuse, that the deadline was calendared solely in the personal task list of her paralegal, who left the firm abruptly on June 30, 2024, and that in the transition the deadline was never migrated to a shared calendar. Respondent acknowledges responsibility for the resulting harm to her client.

Answering Count Two (Candor): Respondent denies that she knowingly made a false statement to the tribunal. Respondent admits that her affidavit stated a "first became aware" date of November 26, 2024, and admits that she had received earlier communications. Respondent states that the November 26 date was a good-faith reconstruction from memory, reflecting the date she fully appreciated the consequences during a call with her client, and that she did not intend to misrepresent the timeline. Respondent acknowledges the affidavit was inaccurate and should have been drafted from the file rather than from memory.

Answering Count Three (Supervision): Respondent admits that the firm lacked a centralized docketing system and relied on a single staff member's personal calendar, and admits this was an inadequate safeguard. Respondent states that she has since installed a centralized cloud docketing system with redundant reminders and has had no further calendaring failures.

Matters in Mitigation: Respondent states that during the relevant period she was caring for a terminally ill parent while running her practice short-staffed; that she cooperated fully with the investigation; that she has no prior discipline; and that she has taken concrete remedial measures. Respondent asks that any discipline be proportional and directed at protecting the public and rehabilitation rather than punishment.

WHEREFORE, Respondent asks that the Court impose the least severe discipline consistent with the misconduct found, and for such other relief as is just.

Respectfully submitted,

Amara Ellingboe Ellingboe & Ravndal LLP Counsel for Respondent

CASE-FILE DOCUMENT · MOTION TO VACATE AND AFFIDAVIT

Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Supporting Affidavit (Underlying Dieterle Matter)

Exhibit reproducing the December 10, 2024 filing from the underlying premises-liability case. This is the document at the center of the candor allegation.

Notice of Motion and Motion

Dieterle v. Larkspur Market Holdings, LLC — District Court

Plaintiff Marguerite Dieterle, by counsel Delphine A. Karsgaard, moves the Court for an order vacating the dismissal entered October 2, 2024, and reinstating this action, on the ground of excusable neglect. This motion is supported by the attached Affidavit of Delphine A. Karsgaard.

Dated: December 10, 2024 Delphine A. Karsgaard, Attorney for Plaintiff

Affidavit of Delphine A. Karsgaard

STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF [County]

Delphine A. Karsgaard, being duly sworn, deposes and states:

1. I am the attorney for plaintiff Marguerite Dieterle in this action and make this affidavit in support of the motion to vacate the dismissal.

1. This matter was filed in May 2024. The deadline to complete service on the defendant was in August 2024.

1. My office's litigation deadlines had been maintained by my paralegal, who left the firm at the end of June 2024. In the transition, the service deadline for this matter was not carried forward, and service was not completed.

1. I first became aware of the failure of service on November 26, 2024, when my client contacted my office to inquire about the status of the matter.

1. Upon learning of the failure, I promptly investigated, confirmed the dismissal, and prepared this motion.

1. The failure was the result of an inadvertent calendaring lapse during a staffing transition, not a deliberate disregard of the matter. Plaintiff has a meritorious claim and should not lose it because of this office error. Defendant will suffer no material prejudice from reinstatement.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests that the dismissal be vacated and the action reinstated.

Delphine A. Karsgaard

Subscribed and sworn before me this 10th day of December, 2024.

[Note for the file: paragraph 4's "first became aware … November 26, 2024" is the statement the Director alleges was false, in light of the September 18 email and the October 2 order. See the correspondence and docketing exhibits.]

CASE-FILE DOCUMENT · DOCKETING HANDOFF LOG

Firm Docketing Record and Calendar-Handoff Log

Reconstructed record of how the Dieterle service deadline was tracked and lost. Assembled by respondent's counsel from the firm's files and interviews. Described here as it would appear if printed as an exhibit.

A. The pre-departure task-list entry (paralegal M. Delacroix)

A screenshot from paralegal Marnie Delacroix's task-list application, dated May 16, 2024, shows an entry:

There is no corresponding entry on the office shared calendar for this date. The firm maintained no separate master docket.

B. The departure and the gap

• June 14, 2024 — Delacroix gives notice (email in file).
• June 30, 2024 — Delacroix's last day. Exit checklist in the file shows "intake spreadsheet exported" and "billing exported," but there is no line item for exporting or transferring the deadline task list. Her workstation was reimaged for reuse on July 8, 2024, erasing the local task list.
• July–October 2024 — No replacement paralegal hired. No shared-calendar entry for the Dieterle service deadline exists during this period.

C. The missed date and its consequences

• Aug 13, 2024 — Service deadline passes. No activity logged in the Dieterle file.
• Sept 18, 2024 — Inbound email from opposing counsel O. Prentice (see correspondence exhibit) noting service not effected. The email is present in Respondent's email archive with a "read" timestamp of Sept 18, 2024, 4:42 p.m.
• Oct 2, 2024 — Court's dismissal order received by e-service; present in the file with an Oct 2 delivery receipt.
• Nov 26, 2024 — Client call logged in the phone/notes system; Respondent's contemporaneous note reads "MD called re status — advised of dismissal, will move to vacate."

D. Remedial measures (post-complaint)

• March 2025 — Firm adopts a centralized cloud docketing platform; all deadlines entered with two redundant reminders (30-day and 7-day) routed to both attorneys.
• No calendaring failures logged since adoption.

This log is offered to show the mechanism of the missed deadline and the timeline of notice relevant to both the neglect and candor allegations.

CASE-FILE DOCUMENT · CLIENT CORRESPONDENCE

Client Correspondence — Karsgaard-Dieterle and Opposing-Counsel Emails

Selected emails from the underlying Dieterle matter, reproduced as an exhibit. Dates and read-receipts are drawn from the firm's email archive.

1. Opposing counsel to Karsgaard — September 18, 2024, 4:31 p.m.

From: Odalys Prentice To: Delphine Karsgaard Subject: Dieterle v. Larkspur Market — service Delphine — We represent Larkspur Market Holdings. We have never been served with the summons and complaint in this matter, and the time to complete service has now passed. Unless I hear otherwise with proof of timely service, we intend to move to dismiss. Please advise. — Odalys Prentice

Archive metadata: message marked "read" at 4:42 p.m. on September 18, 2024. No reply from Respondent is in the file.

2. Karsgaard to Dieterle — October 9, 2024

From: Delphine Karsgaard To: Marguerite Dieterle Subject: RE: checking in Marguerite — Good to hear from you. Things are on track and moving along; these cases take time, especially getting the store's insurer to engage. I'll reach out as soon as I have something concrete to report. Hope the wrist is continuing to improve. — Delphine

Note: at the time of this email, the action had already been dismissed (Oct 2, 2024). This is the communication underlying the allegation that Respondent falsely reassured her client.

3. Dieterle to Karsgaard — November 26, 2024

From: Marguerite Dieterle To: Delphine Karsgaard Subject: any news? Delphine — It's been a while and I haven't heard anything. Has the store made any offer? I'd really like to know where things stand. Please call me. — Marguerite

Respondent's phone note the same day records that she told Ms. Dieterle the case had been dismissed and that she would move to vacate.

4. Karsgaard to Dieterle — November 27, 2024

From: Delphine Karsgaard To: Marguerite Dieterle Subject: RE: any news? Marguerite — As we discussed yesterday, I have to be straight with you: the case was dismissed on a procedural deadline, and I'm preparing a motion to ask the court to reopen it. I'm very sorry. I'll call you when the motion is on file. — Delphine

CASE-FILE DOCUMENT · AFFIDAVIT DELACROIX

Affidavit of Marnie Delacroix

In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Delphine A. Karsgaard, a Minnesota Attorney Before the Minnesota Supreme Court / Referee proceeding

STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF [County]

Marnie Delacroix, being first duly sworn, states as follows:

1. My name is Marnie Delacroix. I am over eighteen years of age and competent to make this affidavit. The facts stated here are within my personal knowledge.

1. From 2018 until June 30, 2024, I worked as the full-time paralegal at Karsgaard Law Office. I handled client intake, filing, billing, and — most relevant here — the office calendar and litigation deadlines.

1. The office did not use a centralized or shared docketing program during my time there. I kept all of the firm's deadlines in a task-list application on my own workstation. It was the system I had always used, and it worked. I would enter deadlines as I opened or advanced a file and remind the attorneys as dates approached.

1. I remember the Dieterle premises-liability matter. After Ms. Karsgaard had the summons and complaint filed in May 2024, I entered the deadline to complete service and file proof of service. My recollection is that the date was in the middle of August 2024. I entered it in my task list the way I entered everything.

1. In mid-June 2024 I gave notice that I was leaving. My spouse had taken a job out of state and we were relocating on short timeline. My last day was June 30, 2024.

1. Before I left, I exported the client intake spreadsheet and the billing records and left them where Ms. Karsgaard and Mr. Emberly could find them. I did not, however, export or hand off my personal task list of deadlines. No one asked me to, and in the rush of leaving I did not think to migrate those entries to a shared calendar. Looking back, that was the gap. The deadlines that lived only in my task list left the office when my workstation was wiped for the next user.

1. I was not asked to train a replacement before I left, because there was no replacement hired yet. As far as I knew, Ms. Karsgaard and Mr. Emberly intended to cover the desk themselves for a while.

1. No one from the office contacted me after I left to ask about the Dieterle service deadline or any other calendared date. The first I heard of any problem with that case was much later, when I was asked to provide this affidavit.

1. In the years I worked for Ms. Karsgaard, I never knew her to ignore a deadline I flagged for her. If a date was in front of her, she met it. The failure here, as I understand it, was that this date was never in front of anyone after I left.

1. I have no financial or personal interest in the outcome of this proceeding. I have provided this affidavit because I was asked to describe how the office calendar worked and what happened when I left.

Further your affiant sayeth not.

Marnie Delacroix

Subscribed and sworn to before me this ____ day of ____________, 2026.

Notary Public

WITNESS STATEMENT · STATEMENT EMBERLY

Statement of Jonas Emberly

In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Delphine A. Karsgaard, a Minnesota Attorney Witness statement — provided to respondent's counsel, Ellingboe & Ravndal LLP

My name is Jonas Emberly. I am an attorney admitted to practice for three years, and I am the associate at Karsgaard Law Office. I have worked there since shortly after I was admitted. I am giving this statement voluntarily and have been told to describe only what I actually know.

How the office kept its deadlines. When I started, the way the office tracked litigation deadlines was simple: Marnie Delacroix, our paralegal, kept them in a task-list program on her computer. There was no shared docketing system and no backup calendar that I ever saw. Marnie would tell us when something was coming due. Honestly, it worked well the whole time she was there. I trusted it because everyone trusted it.

Marnie's departure. Marnie gave notice in June 2024 and left at the end of that month. It was fast — her family was moving out of state. She left us the intake and billing files, but I never received her deadline task list, and I don't believe Ms. Karsgaard did either. We did not hire a replacement paralegal for several months. During that stretch, Ms. Karsgaard and I were both doing paralegal work on top of our own — pulling files, calendaring, chasing service — and I think things slipped in the cracks because there was simply no one whose job it was to catch them.

The Dieterle matter. I did some drafting work early in the Dieterle case, but I was not the one responsible for service, and I was not tracking that deadline. I did not know the service date had been missed until well after the fact. I never saw any email from opposing counsel about service, and Ms. Karsgaard never mentioned one to me at the time. The first I understood there was a real problem was when Ms. Karsgaard began working on a motion to try to undo the dismissal.

Ms. Karsgaard that fall. I want to be fair about this. That autumn Ms. Karsgaard was not herself. She was in early and staying late, she seemed distracted, and she was clearly under strain. I knew her father was very sick — she mentioned it once or twice but did not want to talk about it, and I did not push. I am not offering that as an excuse for anything. I am describing what I saw because I was asked to.

My own view. In the years I have worked for her, I have never seen Ms. Karsgaard blow off a client or a deadline she knew about. My honest sense is that this was a case of a date that no one was watching after Marnie left, landing in the worst possible stretch. I understand there is also a question about a date in an affidavit, but I was not involved in that affidavit and cannot speak to it.

I have reviewed this statement and it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

Jonas Emberly

CASE-FILE DOCUMENT · COMPLAINT STATEMENT DIETERLE

Complaint Statement of Marguerite Dieterle

Submitted to the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility Complainant statement in support of ethics complaint — dated March 10, 2025

My name is Marguerite Dieterle. I am sixty-three years old and retired from working as an office administrator for a school district. I am writing to complain about my former attorney, Delphine Karsgaard.

On January 20, 2024, I slipped on a wet spot near the coolers at the Larkspur Market on my usual grocery trip. There was no sign and no cone. I went down hard and broke my wrist and my elbow. I had surgery and months of physical therapy, and my wrist still does not work the way it used to.

I hired Ms. Karsgaard in February 2024 to make a claim against the store. She was recommended to me and she seemed capable and kind. She told me I had a good case. I signed her paperwork and I did everything she asked. I gave her my medical records and my bills. For months I assumed things were moving forward, because that is what she told me.

In October 2024 I called her office to ask whether there had been any offer from the store. She told me the case was "on track" and moving along and that these things take time. I believed her. I had no reason not to.

Then in late November 2024 I called again because I had not heard anything. This time she told me the truth: my case had been dismissed. She said a deadline had been missed and that she was going to file something to try to fix it. I was stunned. She had told me a month earlier that everything was fine.

She did file a motion to try to reopen the case. In December I got a copy of it. In her sworn statement attached to that motion, she wrote that she "first became aware" of the problem on November 26 — the day I called her the second time. That is not right. She knew before that. She had already told me in October the case was on track, which she could only have done if she was hiding that it had been dismissed. The motion was denied in February 2025.

I lost my claim against the store because of this. My injury was real and my medical bills were real, and now there is nothing. What upsets me the most is not even the missed deadline — people make mistakes. It is that she looked me in the eye, so to speak, in October and told me everything was fine when it was not, and then put a date in a court paper that made it look better for her than the truth.

I have since hired a different lawyer, Sunila Achterberg, to help me pursue Ms. Karsgaard for the harm this caused. I am submitting this complaint because I do not think what happened to me should happen to the next person.

Marguerite Dieterle

CASE-FILE DOCUMENT · OLPR CHARGE LETTER

OLPR Charge Letter and Investigation Summary

Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility Re: Complaint of Marguerite Dieterle against Delphine A. Karsgaard Charge letter — August 20, 2025

Dear Ms. Karsgaard:

This letter follows the investigation of the complaint filed against you by Marguerite Dieterle on March 10, 2025, and the review by the district ethics committee. Based on the investigation, the Director has determined that there is sufficient evidence to charge you with professional misconduct and to petition for public discipline. This letter summarizes the charges and the record supporting them.

Investigation summary. Ms. Dieterle retained you in February 2024 for a premises-liability claim. A summons and complaint were filed in May 2024. Service was not completed by the August 13, 2024 deadline, and the action was dismissed on October 2, 2024, after which the claim became time-barred. Our investigation obtained your email archive, the underlying court file, your motion to vacate and supporting affidavit, and statements from your former paralegal and your associate.

Charge One — Neglect. You failed to complete service, failed to monitor the matter following your paralegal's June 30, 2024 departure, and thereby failed to represent your client with reasonable diligence, causing the loss of her claim.

Charge Two — Candor. Your December 10, 2024 affidavit stated that you "first became aware" of the service failure on November 26, 2024. The record shows you received opposing counsel's written notice on September 18, 2024 (with a same-day read receipt) and the dismissal order on October 2, 2024. The Director charges that this was a false statement of material fact to a tribunal.

Charge Three — Supervision. Your firm relied on a single staff member's personal task list with no centralized docketing or backup, an arrangement that failed to give reasonable assurance that client deadlines would be safeguarded.

Aggravating and mitigating factors noted. The investigation notes as potentially aggravating that you received actual notice in September and did not act, and that your October 9, 2024 email to your client stated the case was "on track" after it had been dismissed. It notes as potentially mitigating your lack of prior discipline, your cooperation, and remedial docketing measures adopted in March 2025.

You have the right to be represented by counsel and to answer these charges. A referee will be appointed to conduct a hearing.

Sincerely,

Gideon Voss Senior Assistant Director Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility

BUSINESS EXHIBIT · ENGAGEMENT LETTER

Engagement Letter

Ellingboe & Ravndal LLP 310 Riverwalk Plaza, Suite 400, Norsholm, Meridian 55901 office@ellingboeravndal.example.com

December 1, 2025

Delphine A. Karsgaard 88 Birchmont Avenue, Suite 2 Aldenwood, MN 55418

Re: Representation in In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Delphine A. Karsgaard

Dear Ms. Karsgaard:

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

Scope of representation. We will represent you as respondent in the disciplinary proceeding brought by the Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility and pending before the Minnesota Supreme Court, including the referee hearing and the preparation of pre-hearing submissions and oral argument. Our goal is to defend against the charges, and where liability is conceded, to advocate for the most proportional and least severe discipline consistent with the facts. This engagement does not include any separate civil malpractice claim that may be asserted against you, which would require a separate agreement.

Fees. Our fees for this matter are charged on an hourly basis. Amara Ellingboe will serve as lead counsel at $250 per hour; Marcus Ravndal will assist at $225 per hour. Time is recorded in tenth-of-an-hour increments. We will bill you monthly, and payment is due within thirty days of each statement. Reasonable costs and disbursements (such as record-retrieval and copying charges) will be billed as incurred.

Your responsibilities. You agree to cooperate fully, to provide complete and accurate information and documents, and to keep us informed. Candor with your own counsel is essential; we can only defend effectively what we fully understand.

Confidentiality. Communications between us in the course of this representation are protected by the attorney-client privilege and the duty of confidentiality.

Termination. You may end this representation at any time. We may withdraw as permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct. Upon conclusion, we will return your file materials on request.

If these terms are acceptable, please sign below and return one copy. We appreciate your confidence and will work diligently on your behalf.

Sincerely,

Amara Ellingboe Ellingboe & Ravndal LLP

Delphine A. Karsgaard Date

Accepted for the firm Date

BUSINESS EXHIBIT · INTAKE & CONFLICTS

Intake (2025-11-28). Defense of a Minnesota attorney against a Petition for Disciplinary Action alleging neglect of a client matter, a candor violation in a supporting affidavit, and a supervisory failure; goal is to contest the candor charge and argue for a proportional, lesser sanction.

Conflicts check (2025-11-29) — CLEAR. No current or former firm representation of Ms. Dieterle, the OLPR, Larkspur Market Holdings, or Ms. Achterberg. No personal or financial interest adverse to the client. Cleared to represent the respondent.

BUSINESS EXHIBIT · BILLING STATEMENT (15 TIME ENTRIES)

BUSINESS EXHIBIT · INVOICES