In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Patrick Joseph Farley

Summary

The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed attorney disciplinary proceedings arising from Patrick J. Farley's felony conviction for internet solicitation of a minor. The court upheld the finding that Farley violated Minnesota Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(b), rejected most asserted mitigating factors, and imposed an indefinite suspension with no right to seek reinstatement for at least one year.

Holdings

1. Farley's felony conviction for criminal solicitation of a minor constituted professional misconduct under Rule 8.4(b), and discipline was warranted.
2. An attorney claiming psychological disorder as mitigation must prove by clear and convincing evidence all five Weyhrich factors: a severe disorder, causation of the misconduct, treatment and progress, arrest of the misconduct through recovery, and lack of likelihood of recurrence. Farley failed to establish severity and causation, so his psychological disorder was not a mitigating factor.
3. Remorse is an important consideration in determining the appropriate attorney-discipline sanction, and the referee clearly erred by failing to address it. The record established that Farley had remorse.
4. Cooperation with disciplinary proceedings, when required by Rule 25 of the Minnesota Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility, is not a mitigating factor.
5. Lack of harm to clients may be considered as a mitigating factor, and the referee implicitly considered it by finding that Farley's crime occurred outside the practice of law.
6. For intentional misconduct, individual Weyhrich factors such as progress in psychological or sex-offender treatment are not considered independently as mitigating factors when the attorney fails to satisfy the Weyhrich test.
7. An indefinite suspension with no right to petition for reinstatement for a minimum of one year was warranted; the referee's recommended six-month suspension was too lenient, but disbarment was not warranted.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Farley's felony criminal solicitation of a minor violated Minnesota Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(b).
2. Whether Farley's psychological condition satisfied the Weyhrich requirements for mitigation.
3. Whether remorse, cooperation, lack of harm to clients, good character, and progress in sex-offender treatment constituted mitigating factors.
4. What disciplinary sanction was appropriate for Farley's intentional criminal misconduct unrelated to the practice of law.

Disposition

other