The second petition for reinstatement filed by a Minnesota man who was suspended from the practice of law in 1990 has failed.
William G. Mose was suspended in 1990 after six years of practice as a solo practitioner. Mose had been placed on supervised probation in 1989 for “incompetence, client neglect, and failing to follow court orders,” according to the Supreme Court order. His probation was revoked in 1990 after he failed to attend a trial advocacy skills course and pay restitution to two of his former clients, both of which were conditions of his probation. At that time, he was accused of new acts of misconduct, including lying to clients, failing to communicate with clients and incompetence. Those accusations resulted in an indefinite suspension, which was replicated in 1991 when a third discipline petition was filed alleging similar ethical violations. Nineteen complaints from 15 clients were lodged against Mose in total.
In 2007, Mose filed a petition for reinstatement, which was denied. The Supreme Court found that Mose had failed, during his 17 year suspension, to complete the trial advocacy skills course and did not prove that he underwent a moral change and was competent to practice law. On Wednesday, the court made the same ruling on Mose’s second petition for reinstatement, finding that a litigation CLE course taken by Mose did not qualify as a trial advocacy skills course, he did not demonstrate a moral change, and he did not show intellectual competence to practice law.
The Minnesota Supreme Court also issued a disciplinary order in the case of Randall D. B. Tigue. The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility had requested that Tigue be suspended for 90 days and required to petition for reinstatement. The Supreme Court ordered a 30-day suspension. Tigue will not have to petition for reinstatement, but can be reinstated by affidavit.
Tigue is accused of misappropriating client funds, failing to maintain trust account records, and failing to retain trust account records. The court wrote that, while “there is no indication in the record that Tigue’s misconduct resulted from any intention to deceive his clients, his misconduct is nonetheless serious.” The court also noted that it was not Tigue’s first discipline for trust account violations.