In re Reinstatement of Mose

Summary

The Minnesota Supreme Court denied William G. Mose’s second petition for reinstatement to the practice of law after his indefinite suspension. The court concluded that Mose failed to satisfy a reinstatement condition requiring completion of a trial advocacy course, failed to prove the requisite moral change, and failed to demonstrate intellectual competence to practice law by clear and convincing evidence.

Holdings

1. The Supreme Court independently reviews the entire record, defers to the panel's credibility assessments, and upholds the panel's factual findings when supported by the record and not clearly erroneous.
2. Mose did not satisfy the reinstatement condition requiring completion of a four-day or eight-day trial advocacy skills course or an equivalent program approved by the Director.
3. A suspended lawyer seeking reinstatement must prove by clear and convincing evidence a genuine moral change such that clients can have complete confidence in the lawyer's competence and morality; Mose failed to meet that burden.
4. When an attorney was suspended for incompetence and lack of diligence and has not practiced law for an extended period, passing the bar examination is insufficient by itself; the attorney must also demonstrate legal reasoning and case-management skills through paid or volunteer work. Mose failed to make that showing.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Mose complied with the condition of reinstatement requiring completion of a qualifying trial advocacy skills course.
2. Whether Mose demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence the requisite moral change for reinstatement.
3. Whether Mose demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence the intellectual competence to resume practicing law.
4. What standard of review governs the Supreme Court's review of an LPRB reinstatement recommendation when the petitioner orders a transcript.

Disposition

other