Court OKs discipline, but dissent opposes requiring petition for reinstatement

Listen to this article

Minnesota attorney John Horst has been suspended indefinitely from the practice of law. While the court agreed on discipline, Justice Paul Thissen dissented, asserting that the court should not have required Horst to petition for reinstatement.

The Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed both a petition and supplementary petition for disciplinary action alleging that Horst committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline. Horst allegedly failed to communicate with seven clients, failed to cooperate in five disciplinary investigations, failed to place two clients’ funds in trust, failed to provide accountings of how he earned fees to four clients, failed to provide two clients with copies of their files upon termination of representation, failed to return unearned fees to three clients, made false statements to five clients to conceal his neglect, neglected seven client matters, and provided incompetent representation to a client.

The parties stipulated to discipline. Horst waived his procedural rights, withdrew his answers, and unconditionally admitted the allegations of the petition and supplementary petition. Horst and the OLPR recommended a 120-day suspension, as well as supervised probation for two years if he resumes the practice of law.

But the parties also recommended that the court waive the reinstatement hearing detailed in Rule 18(a) through (d) and allow Horst to be reinstated by affidavit under Rule 18(f). If an attorney is suspended for more than 90 days, and they do not have a waiver, they must petition for reinstatement and have a reinstatement hearing. The OLPR director recommended the waiver due to mitigating factors, including “extreme personal stress and a mental health condition (severe depression) respondent experienced at the time of the misconduct, respondent’s inexperience practicing law, and his genuine remorse.” Additionally, the director cited the action to help his mental health that Horst has since taken after his misconduct became known.

Although the court agreed with the 120-day suspension, it did not waive the reinstatement hearing, citing its rules requiring lawyers suspended for more than 90 days to petition for reinstatement. “Given the very serious nature of respondent’s misconduct and the harm caused to many clients, waiving the reinstatement hearing process is inadequate to protect the public and the judicial system and to deter future misconduct,” wrote Justice Gordon Moore.

Thissen dissented, disagreeing with the court’s requirement that Horst petition for reinstatement and noting that the process will add significant time to the length of Horst’s suspension. He would have imposed the discipline that the parties agreed to, asserting that it was “consistent with our commitment as a court to focusing on the wellness of attorneys, especially as it relates to mental health.”

“The record discloses that Horst is taking important steps to address the root cause of his misconduct and there is no evidence in the record before the court to contradict those disclosures. Further, the proposed conditions of supervised probation provide additional protection to the public,” Thissen wrote.

The majority disagreed that its decision was inconsistent with its call to action for lawyer well-being. “Contrary to the dissent’s suggestion, the discipline we impose today is not inconsistent with our commitment to lawyer well-being, especially with respect to mental health,” wrote Moore. “By recognizing Horst’s depression as a mitigating factor, we have accounted for Horst’s mental health and the important and laudable steps he has taken to address the root cause of his misconduct.”

“Were it not for the mitigating factors present, a longer suspension would be appropriate in this case,” Moore added.

One thing to note: Implementation of a change to Rule 18(f) remains pending. The Advisory Committee on the Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility recommended that Rule 18 be amended so that lawyers suspended for 180 days or less be allowed to seek reinstatement by affidavit unless the court orders otherwise. However, Thissen’s dissent noted that implementation of the change remains pending until the court issues an order addressing “all the necessary amendments” recommended by the Advisory Committee in late June 2024.

In 2022, the court asked the Standing Committee on Professional Regulation of the American Bar Association to review and evaluate Minnesota’s lawyer discipline system. The Committee recommended allowing lawyers suspended 6 months or less to be reinstated by affidavit. In an Aug. 23, 2023, order, the Minnesota Supreme Court agreed with the recommendation. “After fully weighing the ABA’s recommendation, we adopt it: a lawyer suspended for a fixed period of 6 months or less can seek reinstatement by affidavit,” wrote the court.

The court does retain discretion to require petition for reinstatement in certain cases, however. “Our decision to move the line for reinstatement by affidavit out to 6 months comes with one critical exception: a lawyer who has been suspended previously, for any period, will be required to petition for reinstatement. We will also not hesitate to require a petition for reinstatement when a lawyer’s past disciplinary history demands that sanction, even if that history does not include a previous suspension,” the court added.