In Re Petition for Reinstatement of Clark Calvin GRIFFITH, II, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0175638, 883 N.W.2d 798

Clark Calvin Griffith II, admitted 1986, was suspended indefinitely in 2013 (minimum 90 days before petitioning) for sexually harassing a WMCL student, exposing his genitals, forcing her to touch him, and then attempting to pressure her to recant; he entered an Alford plea to indecent exposure.
Griffith petitioned for reinstatement on July 23, 2015; the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility (the Director) opposed reinstatement.
A panel of the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board held a hearing and found Griffith failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he had undergone the requisite moral change and recognition of wrongdoing, recommending denial.
The panel found Griffith complied with suspension terms, had been suspended about two years, had no evidence of remediable mental/physical illness, and appeared intellectually competent to practice law.
The panel discredited Griffith’s testimony: he equivocated about facts he had previously stipulated to, shifted blame to medication side effects, failed to articulate changed attitudes, and did not acknowledge the victim’s experience.
Griffith contested several procedural and evidentiary rulings (late medical evidence, weight of character witnesses, presence of the victim’s civil counsel) but the Supreme Court, after independent review, affirmed the panel’s findings as not clearly erroneous and denied reinstatement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Griffith)	Defendant's Argument (Director/Panel)	Held
Whether petitioner proved requisite moral change to regain fitness/trust	Griffith claimed remorse, suggested medical causes, presented character witnesses	Panel/Director: testimony lacked credibility, equivocation on facts, insufficient evidence of moral change	Denied — petitioner did not prove moral change by clear and convincing evidence
Admissibility/consideration of neurologist report	Medical evidence would explain misconduct; report/witness should be admitted	Disclosure was untimely; admitting it would prejudice Director	Panel did not err in excluding late medical evidence due to untimeliness
Weight to character witnesses	Longstanding associates attested to Griffith’s character and reform	Witnesses lacked firsthand knowledge of misconduct or of demonstrable moral change	Court upheld panel’s limited weight to those witnesses
Effect of victim’s civil counsel presence on petitioner’s ability to testify candidly	Presence inhibited Griffith from fully expressing remorse/understanding	Griffith chose to petition while civil suit pending; hearing was public; inhibition was his choice	Not persuasive — no entitlement to relief on that basis

In re Jellinger, 728 N.W.2d 917 (Minn. 2007) (reinstatement requires clear and convincing proof of moral change)
In re Porter, 472 N.W.2d 654 (Minn. 1991) (moral change must show petitioner’s state of mind and values)
Gassler v. State, 787 N.W.2d 575 (Minn. 2010) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
In re Mose, 754 N.W.2d 357 (Minn. 2008) (deference to panel credibility findings in reinstatement)
In re Mose, 843 N.W.2d 570 (Minn. 2014) (factors for reinstatement: remorse, changed conduct/state of mind, renewed ethical commitment)
In re Selmer, 749 N.W.2d 30 (Minn. 2008) (procedural guidance on scope of review when transcript ordered)
In re Holker, 765 N.W.2d 633 (Minn. 2009) (moral change and recognition of wrongfulness are decisive factors)
In re Anderson, 759 N.W.2d 892 (Minn. 2009) (deference to referee/panel credibility determinations)
In re Moulton, 721 N.W.2d 900 (Minn. 2006) (standard for overturning credibility-based findings)
In re Hanson, 454 N.W.2d 924 (Minn. 1990) (moral change must come from record and petitioner’s state of mind)