Opinion ID: 1963937
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Director's Contentions

Text: The Director argues that the referee erred in finding that Farley was making very good progress in his sex offender treatment and [t]his progress is a mitigating factor as to the length of the suspension. The Director contends that the referee's finding effectively abrogates Weyhrich, in that an attorney could benefit from a claim of psychological mitigation even if the Weyhrich standard has not been met. Farley counters that we have previously treated facts that would satisfy individual Weyhrich elements as independent mitigating factors even when the Weyhrich standard itself has not been met. Farley relies on In re Bergstrom, 562 N.W.2d 674, 678 (Minn.1997), to support this argument. In Bergstrom, the attorney claimed that he should not be suspended from the practice of law because any misconduct was a product of his depression that satisfied the Weyhrich test. 562 N.W.2d at 676, 678. We concluded that a stayed suspension was warranted because Bergstrom's severe depression, for which he is being treated, played a significant role in causing his misconduct. Id. at 678. Farley relies on this language to argue that we will independently consider a Weyhrich factor in mitigation even when the respondent has not proven all the Weyhrich factors. Farley's argument lacks merit for two reasons. First, Bergstrom implicitly concluded that the attorney had proven the Weyhrich factors. Specifically, the language quoted above satisfies the first two factors. And we stated in the next paragraph of the opinion that while it is not completely certain that Bergstrom's misconduct has been arrested and will not recur, [evidence shows] that Bergstrom has made improvement in both his psychological condition and his legal practice. Significantly, the record reflects that, since beginning his solo practice, Bergstrom has not had any client complaints. Id. Thus, we concluded that Bergstrom's psychological problem was (1) severe, (2) caused his misconduct, (3) was being successfully treated, (4) had not led to further misconduct, and (5) was not likely to recur. Second, we have only treated individual Weyhrich factors as independent mitigating factors in the case of unintentional or passive misconduct. See In re Berg, 741 N.W.2d 600, 605 (Minn.2007) (Berg's depression does not mitigate his intentional misconduct. ... [B]ut our decisions have occasionally considered depression in mitigation [of unintentional conduct] where an attorney's psychological condition does not completely satisfy the Weyhrich test.). Unintentional or passive misconduct encompasses conduct in the nature of client neglect, failure to expedite litigation, and failure to cooperate with an investigation-in other words, conduct that is in the nature of an omission rather than an act. See Jellinger, 655 N.W.2d at 314. Because Farley's misconduct was intentional, the individual Weyhrich factors are not considered in mitigation of his misconduct. Thus, we conclude that the referee erred in considering Farley's progress in sex offender treatment as an independent mitigating factor.