Sanction Increased

A 30-day Minnesota suspension drew an increased reciprocal sanction from the New York Appellate Division for the Second Judicial Department

The respondent also argued to the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota that he did not receive a fair disciplinary hearing because, inter alia, the petition lacked specificity and clarity, and the delay in the filing of the petition caused the witnesses to forget specific events. The Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota found that the charges against the respondent were sufficiently clear and specific and that the record indicated he was given an opportunity to anticipate, prepare, and present a defense at the disciplinary hearing.

In imposing a 30-day suspension, the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota noted that the respondent’s clients were particularly vulnerable as undocumented immigrants with limited English language proficiency, and the respondent caused substantial harm to his clients. The respondent also caused financial harm to the clients, who paid a substantial amount of money for the representation. Furthermore, the respondent failed to acknowledge his wrongdoing and the severity of his misconduct. The Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota also rejected the respondent’s contention that his lack of disciplinary history was a mitigating factor, finding that case law had repeatedly held that the lack of prior disciplinary history was not a mitigating factor, but constituted the absence of aggravating factor. Moreover, while extensive pro bono or civic work may constitute mitigation, the respondent’s submission of some pro bono work without demonstrating its extensiveness was not considered.

By order dated September 12, 2022, the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota reinstated the respondent to the practice of law in Minnesota and placed him on probation for a period of one year.

Here

Based on the misconduct underlying the discipline imposed by the order of the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota filed July 13, 2022, we find that the imposition of reciprocal discipline is warranted, and conclude that the respondent should be suspended for a period of six months.

(Mike Frisch)