A Non-Unanimous Reinstatement

An attorney who had been reciprocally suspended after an Nevada indefinite suspension has been reinstated by the Minnesota Supreme Court.

A panel had made a favorable recommendation

The panel made 13 pages of factual findings related to the standard to prove moral change. Key portions of those findings include that Sanchez credibly testified that he is remorseful for his misconduct. Sanchez presented the testimony of two witnesses, who credibly testified that Sanchez is remorseful and has significantly changed his behavior since being suspended. Sanchez apologized to some clients he harmed. And he has made a good-faith effort to pay restitution to the clients that he harmed.

Sanchez’s mental health was a mitigating factor in the Nevada disciplinary proceeding. Some of the panel’s findings related to moral change address Sanchez’s mental health. The panel found that Sanchez has been consistent in mental-health treatment since 2015. He has regularly seen a psychiatrist and a psychologist and taken his prescribed medication. And since 2014, his mental illness has not caused any episodes of aberrant behavior that interfered with his ability to work or attend school or damaged his personal relationships.

Sanchez has never lived or practiced law in Minnesota. The panel made findings related to Sanchez’s plan for his legal practice. Sanchez intends to move, along with his mother who is part of his support network, to Minnesota. He will not work as a solo practitioner and instead intends to find a job where another lawyer will supervise him. Until he finds legal work, Sanchez will maintain his present, nonlegal employment, which he can do remotely. Sanchez has met with a lawyers’ mental-health support group in Minnesota and has talked with a Minnesota psychologist about transferring his care after he moves here. The panel also found that Sanchez has deep, meaningful relationships with family members to whom he turns for support and that he will be able to maintain these relationships with family members who do not live in Minnesota through technology.

Based on our independent review of the record, we agree that Sanchez has proven moral change and that he should be reinstated to the practice of law, subject to certain conditions.

A dissent by Justice McKeig, joined by Justice Moore III, would deny reinstatement on insufficient proof of moral change.

Sanchez has never practiced law in Minnesota and does not present a coherent plan regarding what his legal practice in Minnesota would involve should he be reinstated. Sanchez’s evidence of moral change is neither clear nor convincing and does not include a showing of support from legal professionals or other third parties aside from his family members—considerations we have previously held to be important in the reinstatement determination.

(Mike Frisch)