# Rule 8.4(d) *Provision of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct under which the Minnesota Supreme Court publicly reprimanded a county attorney in 2009.* Rule 8.4(d) is a provision of the [[Minnesota]] Rules of Professional Conduct. On June 23, 2009, the [[Minnesota Supreme Court]] publicly reprimanded Dakota County Attorney James C. [[Backstrom]] for violating it and ordered him to pay $900 in costs. The case was *In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against James C. Backstrom*, No. A09-861.[^1] The record places two statements side by side. When the complaint was filed, Backstrom said: "There is no merit to any of the allegations contained in this complaint."[^2] The court's 2009 order records that he "waived his procedural rights and admitted the allegations."[^1] ## Who The Minnesota Supreme Court issued the order.[^1] The respondent was Backstrom, a [[county attorney]], who was named in the caption of No. A09-861.[^1] ## What The court publicly reprimanded Backstrom for violating Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(d).[^1] The project's at-issue record states that the reprimand was for emails he sent. The project's dossier identifies their recipient as Dr. Lindsey Thomas, the [[Dakota County Medical Examiner]].[^2] ## When The order is dated June 23, 2009.[^1] The project's at-issue record places it three years before a later reversal that arose from the same emails. The project's dossier identifies that reversal as *State v. Beecroft*, 813 N.W.2d 814 (Minn. 2012). The reversal opinion is not among this article's cited sources.[^2] ## How The matter did not go to a contested proceeding. Backstrom waived his procedural rights and admitted the allegations, and the court then imposed the reprimand.[^1] ## How much The court ordered Backstrom to pay $900 in costs.[^1] ## In the at-issue record At-issue pair AI-Dakota-002 sets two items beside each other. The first is Backstrom's statement, made when the complaint was filed, that it had no merit. The second is the June 23, 2009 public reprimand under Rule 8.4(d), which followed his waiver of procedural rights and his admission of the allegations.[^2][^1] The project files the pair against a March 2026 White House presidential action that establishes a task force to eliminate fraud.[^2] ## Notes [^1]: Minnesota Supreme Court, *In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against James C. Backstrom*, No. A09-861 (June 23, 2009) — public reprimand for violating Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(d); $900 costs; waiver of procedural rights and admission of the allegations. https://mn.gov/web/prod/static/lawlib/live/archive/supct/0906/ORA090861-0623.pdf [^2]: Minnesota wiki at-issue record, *AI-Dakota-002* (Dakota package; the row's sources are mn.gov and startribune.com) — establishes the "no merit" statement made at the filing of the complaint, the reprimand "for the same emails," and the reprimand's timing three years before the later reversal. The row's anchor URL is the White House presidential action, which is not the source of the quotation. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/03/establishing-the-task-force-to-eliminate-fraud/