Reinstatement of Porter, In re, C2-89-58
| Decision Date | 02 August 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. C2-89-58,C2-89-58 |
| Citation | 472 N.W.2d 654 |
| Parties | In Re the Application for REINSTATEMENT OF David K. PORTER as an Attorney at Law of the State of Minnesota. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
Reinstatement is not warranted where suspended attorney has not demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that he has recognized his past misconduct and overcome any psychological disability, as required by the order suspending him.
Thomas J. Davern, Ardery, Davern & Van Okden, Golden Valley, for appellant.
William J. Wernz, Director of Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility, Betty Shaw, Sr. Asst. Director, St. Paul, for respondent.
Heard, considered, and decided by the court en banc.
On January 5, 1990, petitioner David K. Porter was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law, with the right to reapply for reinstatement in no less than six months time. Porter's suspension was based upon charges of falsification of will documents, false swearing under oath, misappropriation of client funds, and mismanagement of trust accounts. Porter claimed mitigation by psychological disability. In re Porter, 449 N.W.2d 713 (Minn.1990).
In July 1990, Porter applied for reinstatement. A panel of the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board held two hearings on this matter, issuing findings and conclusions recommending that Porter not be reinstated. The panel concluded that Porter had not shown by clear and convincing evidence that he has recognized his past misconduct or taken sufficient steps to see that it does not recur.
After the first of the two hearings, Porter mailed a four-page, single-spaced typewritten newsletter to about 30 of his former clients. The rambling and disjointed letter questioned the impartiality of the panel chair and contained a variety of self-serving statements which mischaracterized Porter's previous, admitted misconduct.
At about that same time, though represented by counsel, Porter began a series of unusual, personal contacts with panel members, including a visit to the home of one panel member. Porter requested that the panel hold a second hearing because of alleged ex parte contacts between the panel and the Office of the Director of Lawyers Professional Responsibility. 1 After the second hearing, the panel issued supplemental findings of fact and conclusions, affirming its earlier recommendation that Porter's petition for reinstatement be denied.
In general, an attorney applying for reinstatement must "establish by clear and convincing evidence that she or he has undergone such a moral change as now to render him a fit person to enjoy the public confidence and trust once forfeited." In re Hanson, 454 N.W.2d 924, 925 (Minn.1990) (citations omitted). Evidence of this moral change "must come not only from an observed record of appropriate conduct, but from the petitioner's own state of mind and his values." Id. This standard requires stronger proof of good character and trustworthiness than is required in an original application for admission to practice. In re Swanson, 343 N.W.2d 662, 664 (Minn.1984).
In this case, we required by our order of suspension clear and convincing evidence "that [Porter] has recognized his past misconduct and taken steps to see that it does not recur." Porter, 449 N.W.2d at 719. Porter's letter to his former clients shows a lack of remorse and failure to recognize the seriousness of his conduct. The panel...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Little
...that all a defendant needs to understand when waiving the right to a jury trial are the basic components of a jury trial. See Ross, 472 N.W.2d at 654. The State contends that because the amendment to the complaint adding the first-degree criminal sexual conduct charge here did not affect Li......
-
In re Tigue, A19-1603
...with the requirements of Rule 18, RLPR ; and (3) demonstration of moral change." Stockman , 896 N.W.2d at 856 ; see also In re Porter , 472 N.W.2d 654, 655 (Minn. 1991) (stating that a petitioner must prove by clear and convincing evidence that they are entitled to reinstatement). "Showing ......
- State v. Hansen, A11-2260
-
In re Sand, A18-1795
...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, 655–656 (Minn. 1991).The high standard of proof required of a disbarred attorney applying for reinstatement is to assure us "that reinstatement ......