Tribal Sanction Results In Reduced Reciprocal Discipline
The Minnesota Supreme Court reduced the reciprocal sanction imposed by a tribal court on an attorney admitted in 1970
The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility (the Director) filed a petition under Rule 12(d) of the Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR) requesting that we impose reciprocal discipline against respondent Wesley R. Martins. In August 2023, the courts of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, a federally recognized Indian tribe, determined that Martins committed professional misconduct before the courts of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Court of Central Jurisdiction. The Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Court of Appeals suspended Martins from the practice of law for one year, issued a public reprimand, and required Martins to make a public apology to the presiding judge in the matter in which Martins’s misconduct took place. Because this discipline is substantially different than the discipline warranted in the State of Minnesota for Martins’s misconduct, we decline to impose identical discipline, and instead impose a public reprimand.
Misconduct
On May 8, 2023, Martins was scheduled to appear remotely at a 1:30 p.m. hearing before the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe District Court. Martins did not appear until 1:52 p.m., and when he arrived, he informed the court that he was not ready to proceed. The court continued the matter, and scheduled a remote trial on the merits for May 24 at 1:30 p.m. On that later trial date, Martins was once again late, not appearing until 1:37 p.m. Martins requested that the court place him in a virtual break-out room with his client. At some point after the court did so, Martins left the break-out room to make a remote appearance in a different court, without advising the presiding judge that he was leaving the break-out room or the remote hearing altogether. Martins ultimately returned to the virtual hearing before the Mille Lacs Band Court at 2:50 p.m., but the court had already adjourned due to Martins’s absence. The matter was rescheduled for a second time due to Martins’s conduct.
Jurisdiction
While we have not before considered a reciprocal discipline case originating in a tribal court, we have imposed attorney discipline arising from attorney misconduct before tribal courts based on petitions by the Director.
Fairness of tribal proceeding
We conclude that the Mille Lacs Band’s disciplinary procedures were fair. While it is regrettable that Martins did not realize he had been notified about the hearing until after it had occurred, “[w]e have repeatedly determined that where an attorney was properly served with notice as to the proceedings against him—regardless of his response—then due process has been satisfied.” In re Baird, 18 N.W.3d 529, 537 (Minn. 2025). Martins’s argument regarding the specific type of mail through which notice was provided is also unavailing. Mille Lacs Band Rule of Court 50(e) does not require notice to be provided via “certified mail,” but rather states that notice by “first-class mail shall be sufficient.” Martins admits that notice of the hearing was served on him by first-class mail. Therefore, even if the Mille Lacs Band Court of Appeals’ statement that Martins was served by certified mail was incorrect, service by “regular post” would have satisfied the notice requirements of the Mille Lacs Band’s procedural rules. Because Martins does not dispute that his office received notice of the disciplinary proceedings against him, and therefore that he was provided the chance to respond to the allegations, we conclude that the Mille Lacs Band’s disciplinary proceedings were fair.
Unjustness
The Director argued in her briefing—which was filed before we issued our opinion in Jensen—that identical reciprocal discipline would be “unjust.” But at oral argument, counsel for the Director stated that considering Jensen, the Director’s position is that identical reciprocal discipline in this case would not be “unjust.” We agree. Because no new evidence has been presented demonstrating that circumstances have changed since the original discipline such that Martins’s discipline is no longer necessary to protect the public, identical reciprocal discipline would not be unjust under Rule 12(d), RLPR.
Substantially different discipline
Because this is Martins’s first disciplinary action in a 55-year legal career, and Martins’s misconduct only pertains to one client matter and two hearings, there is no showing of “cumulative” harm here whatsoever. See In re Pearson, 888 N.W.2d 319, 322 (Minn. 2016) (describing that we “distinguish between a brief lapse in judgment or a single, isolated incident and multiple instances of misconduct occurring over a substantial amount of time” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Furthermore, Martins correctly notes that the record lacks evidence of any significant harm to the public or the legal profession stemming from Martins’s misconduct. See In re Nathanson, 812 N.W.2d 70, 79 (Minn. 2012) (“The impact of the harm to the public and the profession requires consideration of the number of clients harmed and the extent of the clients’ injuries.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Thus
Considering Martins’s misconduct and the aggravating factors, and in view of our analogous case law, we agree with the Director’s recommendation that a public reprimand is the discipline warranted in the State of Minnesota for Martins’s misconduct.
(Mike Frisch)