872 N.W.2d 750
Minn.2015Background
- Huff admitted to practice in Illinois in 1997 and Minnesota in 1998; his Minnesota license remains suspended since April 2013 for failure to pay attorney-registration fees.
- Huffman has also been suspended in California, Colorado, and the District of Columbia for misconduct underlying this case.
- Illinois Supreme Court disbarred Huff in November 2013 for a felony conspiracy to distribute 1,000 kilograms or more of marijuana and for failure to notify the Illinois Administrator within 30 days.
- Director petitioned Minnesota for reciprocal discipline under Rule 12(d), RLPR; after failed personal service, Minnesota granted an order of suspension and deemed the petition's allegations admitted when Huff did not respond.
- Huff was given notice, opportunity to respond, and invited to submit proposals on discipline; he did not participate or respond in Minnesota proceedings.
- Minnesota Supreme Court ultimately disbarred Huff, effective upon the filing date of the opinion, and ordered $900 in costs plus required notice under Rule 26.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the Illinois proceeding fundamentally fair and due process compliant? | Director: proceedings were fair with notice and opportunity to respond. | H Huff did not participate; no contrary argument presented. | Illinois proceeding was fundamentally fair. |
| Is the Illinois discipline unjust or substantially different from Minnesota discipline? | Discipline mirrors Minnesota’s standards; appropriate reciprocal discipline. | Not stated; no substantive counter-argument presented. | Discipline not unjust or substantially different; reciprocal disbarment appropriate. |
| Should disbarment be imposed as reciprocal discipline due to Huff's nonparticipation in Minnesota proceedings? | Nonparticipation supports disbarment per precedent. | Not stated; no defense offered. | Disbarment warranted as reciprocal discipline. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Swensen, 743 N.W.2d 243 (Minn. 2007) (reciprocal-discipline framework; fair notice and opportunity to respond)
- In re Heinemann, 606 N.W.2d 62 (Minn. 2000) (due-process requirements met; fairness for reciprocal discipline)
- In re Overboe, 867 N.W.2d 482 (Minn. 2015) (testing fairness of out-of-state disciplinary proceedings)
- In re Wolff, 810 N.W.2d 316 (Minn. 2012) (due process and fairness considerations in reciprocal actions)
- In re Morin, 469 N.W.2d 714 (Minn. 1991) (conservation of judicial resources; defer to other jurisdiction decisions)
- In re Meaden, 628 N.W.2d 129 (Minn. 2001) (reciprocal discipline evaluation; substantial-difference standard)
- In re Reutter, 361 N.W.2d 68 (Minn. 1985) (disbarment for cocaine-distribution conspiracy; seriousness of crime)
- In re Trygstad, 472 N.W.2d 137 (Minn. 1991) (disbarment for conspiracy to distribute cocaine)
- In re Trygstad, 338 N.W.2d 9 (Minn. 1983) (earlier disbarment for conspiracy-related crimes)