834 N.W.2d 200
Minn.2013Background
- Lieber was admitted to the Minnesota bar in 1990 and disbarred in 2005 for improper client financial dealings, misrepresentation, and trust account violations.
- On May 3, 2005 Lieber sold his law practice to Reino Paaso before suspension and disbarment, with subsequent attempts to comply with Rule 26 RLPR.
- Lieber pursued CLE and re-took the bar exam in 2009 and the MPRE in 2010 in preparation for reinstatement under Rule 18 RLPR.
- A de novo hearing was ordered after concerns with the panel’s findings; the referee recommended reinstatement subject to conditions, which the Director initially supported but later opposed.
- The Minnesota Supreme Court reinstated Lieber to the practice of law on probation for 3 years with detailed supervision, reporting, and conduct conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Has Lieber shown moral change warranting reinstatement? | Lieber asserts observed conduct and changed mindset prove rehabilitation. | Director questions sufficiency of moral change evidence. | Lieber has proven moral change and is reinstated on supervised probation. |
| Does Lieber's observed conduct and state of mind support reinstatement? | Record shows transparency, sobriety, and improved ethics supporting change. | Arguments focus on some past conduct but remain outweighed by progress. | Yes; substantial evidence supports observed conduct and changed mindset. |
| Is the seriousness of the original misconduct a bar to reinstatement? | Seriousness does not preclude reinstatement where rehabilitation is shown. | Disbarment for serious schemes warrants caution against reinstatement. | No; the misconduct seriousness does not preclude reinstatement given rehabilitation. |
| Is sufficient time elapsed since disbarment to justify reinstatement? | Approximately 8–9 years elapsed demonstrates genuine rehabilitation. | Time since misconduct is a relevant factor but not dispositive alone. | Yes; the elapsed time supports reinstatement. |
| Did Lieber comply with Rule 26 RLPR and related prerequisites to reinstate? | Rule 26 compliance was satisfied because there were no clients at the time. | Concerns about the spirit of Rule 26 were raised, but compliance was ultimately found. | Yes; Rule 26 and other prerequisites are satisfied with probation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderley, 696 N.W.2d 380 (Minn. 2005) (rehabilitation required for reinstatement; factors include moral change and competence)
- Ramirez, 719 N.W.2d 920 (Minn. 2006) (burden of proof and considerations for reinstatement after disbarment)
- Trygstad, 472 N.W.2d 137 (Minn. 1991) (reinstatement after disbarment despite serious misconduct)
- Kadrie, 602 N.W.2d 868 (Minn. 1999) (state of mind and observed conduct informing moral change inquiry)
- Dedefo, 781 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2010) (intertwined factors of recognizing wrongfulness and moral change)
- Wegner, 417 N.W.2d 97 (Minn. 1987) (time since discipline as a factor in reinstatement evaluation)