Thursday, August 7, 2008

Insufficient Evidence Of Moral Change

An attorney who had been indefinitely suspended in 1991 was denied reinstatement by the Minnesota Supreme Court. The court concluded that he had not demonstrated the "requisite moral change" and competence to be restored to practice. A family law solo practicioner, the attorney had been placed on disciplinary probation and subsequently had the probation revoked. There had been 19 separate complaints against him when the suspension was imposed.

The court noted that the moral change element for purposes of reinstatement is a higher burden of proof than that for an applicant seeking admission and accepted the panel's conclusion that the petitioner had failed to meet his burden of proof. He had not paid restitution in two matters and had not "develop[ed] sufficient plans to avoid future misconduct..." Fans of the movie Fargo will note that the attorney had attributed his disciplinary problems to, among other things, "splitting his time between his work in the Twin Cities and his family in the Brainerd area." (Mike Frisch)

Bar Discipline & Process | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Insufficient Evidence Of Moral Change:


Post a comment