The North Dakota Supreme Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction to review and ultimately deny a petition challenging the disqualification of an attorney from a contentious business dispute case involving Veritas Crane LLC.
In *Weigel v. Albertson* (N.D. 2026), the state's highest court addressed an unusual procedural challenge when Alan Weigel appealed a district court order disqualifying his attorney, Joel Fremstad, from representing him in ongoing litigation against Jason Albertson. The case stems from a business dispute over ownership and control of Veritas Crane LLC, a North Dakota limited liability company that provides crane and hoist inspection, training, and related services.
The underlying dispute began when Albertson formed Veritas Crane in 2018 and brought Weigel into the business partnership in 2019. Initially, the two business partners maintained a good working relationship and communicated daily about company operations. However, their relationship deteriorated over time, leading to significant disagreements about company ownership and management.
The conflict escalated in April 2025 when Albertson contacted Alerus Bank and requested that the institution lock Weigel and others out of Veritas's bank accounts, alleging fraudulent activity by his business partner. The bank responded by placing an administrative hold on the company accounts, which required either joint written authorization from both authorized signers—Weigel and Albertson—or a court order to release the restriction.
When Albertson refused to authorize the release of the banking hold, Weigel retaliated by restricting Albertson's access to Veritas's physical facilities. This tit-for-tat escalation of the business dispute set the stage for formal litigation.
On May 20, 2025, Weigel filed a complaint in the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, naming both himself and Veritas Crane LLC as plaintiffs against Jason Albertson. Each party claims to own at least 50% of the limited liability company, creating a fundamental dispute about corporate control and ownership rights.
During the litigation proceedings, the district court, presided over by the Honorable Steven E. McCullough, issued an order disqualifying Fremstad from representing Weigel in the case. The specific grounds for the attorney disqualification are not detailed in the available court records, but such orders typically arise from conflicts of interest, violations of professional conduct rules, or other ethical considerations that compromise an attorney's ability to represent a client effectively.
Weigel challenged the disqualification order through two legal mechanisms: a direct appeal and an alternative petition for supervisory writ. This dual approach reflected the unusual procedural posture of the case, as attorney disqualification orders are typically not immediately appealable under standard appellate rules.
Writing for the North Dakota Supreme Court, Justice Tufte acknowledged this procedural complexity, noting that "this order is not appealable" under normal circumstances. However, the court chose to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction to review the district court's decision. Supervisory jurisdiction represents an extraordinary remedy that allows appellate courts to review lower court decisions that would otherwise be unreviewable, typically reserved for cases involving important legal principles or potential abuse of judicial authority.
The Supreme Court's decision to exercise supervisory jurisdiction in this case suggests the significance of attorney disqualification issues and the court's recognition that such orders can substantially impact a party's right to counsel of choice. Attorney disqualifications can create significant hardship for clients, who may be forced to find new representation in the middle of complex litigation, potentially causing delays and additional expenses.
Despite reviewing the case under its supervisory jurisdiction, the North Dakota Supreme Court ultimately denied Weigel's petition for relief and dismissed his appeal. The court's brief order does not provide detailed reasoning for upholding the district court's disqualification decision, leaving the specific grounds for the attorney's removal from the case undisclosed in the public record.
The case involved representation by Joel M. Fremstad of Fargo for the plaintiff and appellant, while Samuel J. Logterman, Aaron A. Dean, and Jeffrey A. Wieland from Minneapolis represented the defendant and appellee. The involvement of out-of-state counsel suggests the complexity and potential value of the business dispute.
The Supreme Court's decision leaves the underlying business dispute between Weigel and Albertson to proceed in the district court, presumably with new counsel representing Weigel. The case highlights the intersection of business law, professional responsibility, and civil procedure in complex commercial litigation.
This decision reinforces the North Dakota Supreme Court's willingness to exercise supervisory jurisdiction in appropriate cases while maintaining deference to district court decisions regarding attorney conduct and case management. The ruling may impact future challenges to attorney disqualification orders in the state.