The Minnesota Supreme Court has reinstated an attorney who was disbarred in the wake of a wire fraud conviction.

The court majority found that he had carried his burden of proof 

We fully acknowledge the seriousness of Sand’s misconduct and the legitimate concerns raised by the dissenting panel member and our colleague. Unbeknownst to his own mother, Sand admitted to exploiting her—by using her creditworthiness—to facilitate his criminal scheme. Sand was ordered to pay over $1.2 million in restitution for his crimes. Simply put, Sand’s misconduct was worthy of disbarment.

With that said, the underlying misconduct in reinstatement petitions involving disbarred attorneys will always be quite serious. We have “reinstated attorneys to the practice of law who have been disbarred for misappropriating client funds, stealing, or dishonesty in general.” In re Anderley, 696 N.W.2d 380, 385 n.6 (Minn. 2005). If disbarment were permanent in every case, “[Rule 18] would be a cruel hoax.” Ramirez, 719 N.W.2d at 924 (Minn. 2006) (citation omitted). In other words, the seriousness of his misconduct weighs against Sand’s reinstatement, but does not preclude it.