In re Petition for Reinstatement of Herbert A. Igbanugo, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0191139

In re Igbanugo · Supreme Court of Minnesota · April 1, 2026 · No. A24-1103

Summary

The Minnesota Supreme Court denied Herbert A. Igbanugo’s petition for reinstatement from an indefinite suspension. Applying independent review, the court held that the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board panel did not clearly err in finding that Igbanugo failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the moral change required for reinstatement.

Holdings

  1. The Supreme Court independently reviews the entire reinstatement record, considers but is not bound by the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board panel's recommendation, and reviews supported factual findings for clear error when a hearing transcript has been ordered.
  2. An attorney seeking reinstatement must prove by clear and convincing evidence moral change, competence to practice law, compliance with the conditions of suspension, and compliance with Rule 18 of the Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility.
  3. Igbanugo failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he underwent the moral change required for reinstatement because he did not establish remorse and acceptance of responsibility for his misconduct or a sufficient change in his conduct and state of mind.
  4. The court should not consider Igbanugo's choice to challenge a separate disciplinary proceeding when analyzing whether he demonstrated a renewed commitment to the ethical practice of law in this reinstatement proceeding.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board panel's factual findings concerning Igbanugo's lack of remorse, acceptance of responsibility, and change in conduct and state of mind were clearly erroneous.
  2. Whether Igbanugo proved by clear and convincing evidence the moral change required for reinstatement to the practice of law.
  3. Whether the court should consider Igbanugo's decision to challenge a separate disciplinary proceeding as evidence against his renewed commitment to ethical practice.

Disposition

dismissed

Cases Cited (17)

  • In re Kadrie, 602 N.W.2d 868, 870 (Minn. 1999)(followed)
  • In re Tigue, 960 N.W.2d 694, 699 (Minn. 2021)(followed)
  • In re MacDonald, 994 N.W.2d 547, 551 (Minn. 2023)(followed)
  • In re Selmer, 19 N.W.3d 457, 468, 477 (Minn. 2025)(followed)
  • In re Lieber, 834 N.W.2d 200, 204 (Minn. 2013)(followed)
  • In re Mose (Mose V), 843 N.W.2d 570, 575 (Minn. 2014)(followed)
  • In re Holker, 765 N.W.2d 633, 638 (Minn. 2009)(followed)
  • In re Dedefo, 781 N.W.2d 1, 11 (Minn. 2010)(followed)
  • In re Stockman, 896 N.W.2d 851, 859 (Minn. 2017)(followed)
  • In re Severson, 923 N.W.2d 23, 32 (Minn. 2019)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 17.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…