Opinion ID: 1288964
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Moral Change and Recognition of Wrongfulness of Misconduct

Text: We have said that to be reinstated to the practice of law, the petitioner's moral change must be such that if the petitioner were reinstated, `clients could submit their most intimate and important affairs to him with complete confidence in both his competence and fidelity.' Kadrie, 602 N.W.2d at 870 (quoting In re Herman, 293 Minn. 472, 476, 197 N.W.2d 241, 244 (1972)). The petitioner must provide stronger proof of good character and trustworthiness than is required in an original application for admission to practice. In re Porter, 472 N.W.2d 654, 655-56 (Minn.1991); see also In re Strand, 259 Minn. 379, 380, 107 N.W.2d 518, 519 (1961). Evidence of this moral change must come from (1) an observed record of appropriate conduct, (2) the petitioner's own state of mind, and (3) the petitioner's values. Kadrie, 602 N.W.2d at 870 (citing In re Swanson, 405 N.W.2d 892, 893 (Minn. 1987)). Following the hearing, the panel found that Mose failed to tell a witness who testified at the panel hearing about his suspension or the nature of the panel hearing. The panel found that Mose's failure to tell this witness about his suspension signifies a willingness to engage in dishonest conduct in order to avoid accepting consequences or blame. Moreover, the panel found that Mose's failure to pay restitution to two clients shows a disregard for the harm he caused those clients. The panel further found that while Mose testified that he was remorseful, he tended to minimize or ignore his dishonest acts of misconduct and offered no explanation regarding his intentional misconduct. Overall, the panel found that Mose was not credible in his testimony that he understood the inappropriateness of his prior misconduct and failed to demonstrate remorse for that misconduct. Based on its findings, the panel concluded that Mose had not undergone the requisite moral change to merit reinstatement. As a general rule we will defer to a panel's finding that a petitioner's testimony that he has undergone the requisite moral change is not credible, and we see no reason to depart from this general rule here. Kadrie, 602 N.W.2d at 870. Moreover, based on the record before us, we conclude that Mose failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that he has undergone the moral change necessary to reenter the practice of law. At the panel hearing, Mose stated that he is seeking reinstatement because he wants to rectify the mistakes [he] did in the past and [he thinks he] can do a good job. He admitted that he made several mistakes and that those mistakes involved neglect, incompetence, and a failure to communicate with clients. Mose testified that his misconduct was due to taking on too many cases while being a solo practitioner, being inexperienced, and splitting his time between his work in the Twin Cities and his family in the Brainerd area. Mose also stated that when he undertook the representation of a new client, he would neglect the clients he already had in order to do work for the new client. When asked about his intentional lies to clients, Mose stated that he was very sorry but also characterized his deceptive statements as inaccurate statements or misstatements, which we conclude indicates an ongoing unwillingness to recognize the wrongfulness of his conduct. Mose also apologized, but offered no explanation for much of his intentional conduct, including why he kept client retainers when he was suspended from the practice of law. Mose testified that he is currently more mature than when he committed his prior misconduct, and that he would now do things differently. He further stated that he would put plans in place  such as using a tickler computer program  to make sure he did not commit any future misconduct. But when asked about the tickler system, Mose admitted he had never used one and had no training on such systems. Moreover, Mose has not made any plans for employment if he is reinstated. We have considered whether a petitioner has a career plan in place for after reinstatement when we analyze the moral change factor. E.g., In re Trygstad, 472 N.W.2d 137, 139 (Minn.1991); Strand, 259 Minn. at 381, 107 N.W.2d at 519; see also Jellinger, 728 N.W.2d at 921. We conclude that Mose failed to show that he has developed plans to ensure that, unlike when he was previously admitted to practice law, `clients could submit their most intimate and important affairs to him with complete confidence in both his competence and fidelity.' Kadrie, 602 N.W.2d at 870 (quoting Herman, 293 Minn. at 476, 197 N.W.2d at 244). Regarding the unpaid restitution to two clients, Mose testified that he has been unable to locate the two clients to whom he owes restitution. He stated that the money he owes them is in his attorney trust account. But Mose also admitted without explanation that he only began searching for these clients after he petitioned for reinstatement, which was approximately 16 years after his suspension. We have viewed failure to pay claims as an indication that the petitioner has not undergone a sufficient moral change. See, e.g., In re Swanson, 343 N.W.2d 662, 664 (Minn. 1984); see also Kadrie, 602 N.W.2d at 870-71. Finally, Mose disclosed his suspension to his supervisor at Home Line. The supervisor testified that Mose discussed the suspension with him and also that Mose appeared remorseful and disgusted with his behavior about what he had done. A petitioner's disclosure and expression of remorse to others can weigh in favor of reinstatement. Kadrie, 602 N.W.2d at 871. But Mose failed to disclose his suspension to the supervisor of one of his officiating positions. While nondisclosure to this non-legal supervisor is not as worrisome as nondisclosure in a legal setting, at Mose's request, the officiating supervisor testified on Mose's behalf at the panel hearing. Despite her testifying, Mose never disclosed to the supervisor his suspension or the nature of the panel hearing. We conclude that Mose's failure to disclose his suspension to this supervisor who testified on his behalf evidences a failure to recognize the wrongfulness of his misconduct and to show remorse for that misconduct. Based on Mose's testimony at the panel hearing, his failure to pay restitution to clients, his failure to develop sufficient plans to avoid future misconduct, and our deference to the panel's finding that Mose was not credible in his testimony concerning his moral change, we conclude that Mose failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that he has undergone the requisite moral change to be reinstated to the practice of law.