Minnesota Won’t Reinstate To Allow Resignation

The Minnesota Supreme Court has denied a petition for reinstatement

This petition presents a question of first impression: does our traditional test for attorney reinstatement apply when an attorney agrees that upon reinstatement, he will resign his law license and not apply for admission or re-admission to practice in any jurisdiction? We hold that under these circumstances, it does. Applying our traditional reinstatement test, we conclude that although petitioner William G. Mose has proven the requisite moral change for reinstatement, he has not  demonstrated that he has the intellectual competence to practice law. We therefore deny the petition for reinstatement.

The petitioner was admitted in 1980 but did begin practice until 1985

Mose engaged in the active practice of law for only 5 years—1984 to 1985, and 1986 to 1990. In those 5 years, the Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility received 19 complaints against Mose, all of which resulted in discipline.

Further complaints drew additional sanctions until

On May 20, 1991, based on a stipulation for discipline, we suspended Mose for a minimum of 5 years, retroactive to the date of his original suspension.

He had subsequently sought but been denied reinstatement.

This effort began in 2020

The panel recommended reinstatement, but with the condition that Mose immediately resign his law license upon reinstatement. The panel concluded that Mose demonstrated moral change by clear and convincing evidence, possessed the competence to practice law, and had satisfied all court-ordered conditions for reinstatement.

The Director filed the panel’s findings, as well as a stipulation for reinstatement and resignation entered into between the Director and Mose. In the stipulation, the parties jointly recommend that the appropriate disposition is reinstatement, with Mose simultaneously moving to resign his license pursuant to Rule 11, RLPR, and agreeing not to apply for admission or re-admission to practice law in Minnesota or any other jurisdiction.

Reason for seeking reinstatement

The Director also noted that Mose had “taken numerous and specific steps indicative of a specific plan to work in a law adjacent field,” namely his desire to become an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) neutral. The Director explained that Mose plans to provide mediation services to parents who are having trouble with their children following a divorce.

The court

Although it is true that Mose is not technically planning on practicing law, he is planning on entering a field that is very much intertwined with the practice of law. The practice of ADR is governed by rules set by the judicial branch. See Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 114, 310. The members of the board governing the ethical practice of ADR are appointed by our court.

..we acknowledge Mose’s admirable efforts to address his mental health issues and carefully develop an ADR practice, and we are heartened by his moral change. But because Mose has not demonstrated the intellectual competence to practice law, we must deny his petition for reinstatement.

Justice Thissen dissented

The court’s sole justification for refusing to reinstate Mose is that he has not demonstrated the “intellectual competence to practice law” due to a failure to do enough non-lawyer legal work since his suspension. Supra at 18–19. One may reasonably ask, why should we care about Mose’s intellectual competence to practice law if he is not going to practice law?

Service in ADR

And in this case, according to the panel’s Findings of Fact and the undisputed evidence in the record, Mose has accomplished all the training needed to apply for the roster—training conducted by well-respected trainers. Further, Janet Goehle, an ADR practitioner, testified that Mose’s business plan for a proposed ADR practice was a good plan and that working within the field of early neutral evaluation was a good way for Mose to start his ADR practice. Mose plans to work with Goehle to start out slow and manage an appropriate ADR caseload and has a support system of other ADR professionals to whom he could turn for advice or assistance. Nothing in the record suggests that Mose will not perform well as a qualified neutral if he otherwise meets the rostering requirements. And the court disputes none of these facts.

We should not stand in the way of Mose getting on with his life in a non-lawyer capacity. Accordingly, I dissent.

Footnote

it is ironic that the reason the court finds that Mose has not demonstrated that he is intellectually competent to return to the practice of law following his suspension is because he has not shown enough experience in law-related work. It creates a bit of a Catch-22 and a somewhat manufactured and unfair hurdle, especially for suspended lawyers who must otherwise earn a living because they cannot practice law.

Justice Chutich joined the dissent. (Mike Frisch)