MacDonald attorney staring at six-month suspension.

Byline: Kevin Featherly

Karlowba Adams Powell's filing last week in Michelle MacDonald's defamation-suit appeal might prove her last hurrah in that case. If the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board has its way, Adams Powell could soon be taking at least a six-month break from her profession.

Adams Powell is accused of lying to a tribunal, the board's director and others about representing clients while serving a previous suspension. Several other matters also are involved.

The attorney, who has practiced in Minnesota since 2003, is accused of representing two clients while serving a 45-day suspension in 2017. She also is accused of misleading the courts about why she would unavailable for proceedings during that period.

Additionally, she accused of failing to safeguard client funds and of lying to the board's director during the latest investigation.

According the director's 24-page proposed findings, Adams Powell was suspended on July 19, 2017, for failing to appear in court on behalf of a client. She also subsequently failed to cooperate with the board during that investigation, records indicate.

Despite her suspension, on Aug. 1, 2017, Adams Powell appeared in court representing a family-law client. In chambers before that hearing, she told the parties she would be unavailable for further proceedings until after Sept. 16. She explained she had two other trials and vacations scheduled.

That was untrue, according to the board director's proposed findings. Adams Powell knew she was suspended until after Sept. 16; it wasn't until Aug. 7, after offering her family-law client further counsel via email, that she revealed her suspension.

She later offered various explanations about why she kept quiet, including a belief that she was under no obligation to reveal her suspension. Another time, the proposed order says, she said she thought her suspension was secret, so was not "something that she would be in the position to disclose."

The attorney knew both those statements were false, the proposed order...