Practice While Suspended Draws Sanction

The Minnesota Supreme Court accepted a stipulated 90-day suspension with fitness for practice while suspended

The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed a petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent Larry J. Laver committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline—engaging in the unauthorized practice of law and holding himself out as a lawyer while under a disciplinary suspension. See Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 3.4(c), 5.5(a), 5.5(b)(2). After we suspended Laver in 2023 for eight months because of his “wide-ranging, serious misconduct,” In re Laver, 984 N.W.2d 556, 566 (Minn. 2023), he prepared, signed, and electronically filed legal documents that sought to defend or protect the rights of two companies. In one filing, Laver confirmed that he was the filing attorney, and in the other filings, he held himself out as authorized to practice law. Laver’s misconduct also included attempting to make an argument on behalf of one of these clients at a court hearing and attempting to appear at another hearing.

Stipulated discipline

we conclude that a 90-day suspension, coupled with the requirement to petition for reinstatement, will adequately protect the public, protect the judicial system, and deter future misconduct. In this case, we are ordering Laver to petition for reinstatement. See Rule 18(f), RLPR (stating that “[u]nless otherwise ordered” by the court, lawyers who are “suspended for a fixed period of ninety (90) days or less” may be reinstated by affidavit). We agree that Laver’s misconduct here is troubling and raises concerns separate from the misconduct that led to his previous suspension—concerns that Laver will have to address prior to being reinstated to the practice of law. Because he must petition for reinstatement, Laver will be reinstated to the practice of law only if he proves, among other things, that he has undergone moral change. In re Selmer, 19 N.W.3d 457, 468 (Minn. 2025) (stating that “[a]n attorney seeking reinstatement must prove moral change” and that in order to do so, they “must generally ‘show remorse and acceptance of responsibility for the misconduct, a change in the lawyer’s conduct and state of mind that corrects the underlying misconduct that led to the suspension, and a renewed commitment to the ethical practice of law’ ” (quoting In re Mose, 843 N.W.2d 570, 575 (Minn. 2014))).

(Mike Frisch)