Quandaries & Quagmires: Fast-Tracking Temporary Lawyer Suspensions

In Brief

• Minnesota Supreme Court is considering amendments to Rule 16 governing temporary attorney suspensions.
• The Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board proposes a narrow, criminal charge-based fast-track suspension process.
• The Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility supports broader authority to suspend lawyers before disciplinary petitions are filed.
• The Minnesota State Bar Association recommends clearer standards and limits on regulatory discretion.

---

In lawyer discipline, temporary suspension is a powerful but rarely utilized remedy available before final discipline is imposed. Historically, it has been reserved for the most serious disciplinary matters, such as misappropriation of client funds, felony fraud or other financial crimes like money laundering, and other types of criminal conduct related to the practice of law. In most cases, the lawyer stipulated to temporary suspension or did not contest it.

Minnesota is considering whether to expand temporary suspension procedures earlier in the lawyer discipline process. Competing proposals from the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board and the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility regarding Rule 16 of the Minesota Rules of Lawyers Professional Responsibility, which defines the procedural process for temporary suspension, are currently being considered by the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Temporary Suspension Pending Disciplinary Proceedings Under Rule 16

Currently, temporary suspension is only available after substantial disciplinary process has already occurred. Rule 16 does not permit the Director to seek temporary suspension while allegations are being investigated. In most cases, before a temporary suspension petition can be filed, the Director must complete the investigation and obtain authorization to pursue public discipline. That authorization comes through the probable cause process under Rule 9, where a Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board Panel reviews the Director’s proposed charges and determines whether probable cause exists to proceed. The probable cause step may be skipped, but only in limited circumstances, such as when the lawyer stipulates to bypass it, pleads guilty to, or is convicted of, certain serious felonies. The Director can also file a motion with a Panel Chair to bypass probable cause proceedings because there are admissions, civil findings or other evidence that meets the clear and convincing evidence standard for types of misconduct that result in suspension or disbarment, like misappropriation.

By the time the Director files a petition for temporary suspension, there has already been significant review of the allegations and a determination that public discipline is warranted. Only then may the Director ask the Court to temporarily suspend a lawyer whose continued practice poses “a substantial threat of serious harm to the public.” Additionally, the lawyer is served with the petition and afforded an opportunity to respond before the Court determines whether temporary suspension is appropriate. Rule 16 also requires a hearing before the Court prior to any order for temporary suspension, unless the lawyer defaults on answering the petition, or a referee has already recommended disbarment after a discipline hearing on a petition for public discipline.

Although Rule 16 has existed in its current form for decades, on July 9, 2025, the Court directed the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board to study whether Rule 16 should be amended to create an alternative “fast-track” temporary suspension process.¹ The Board submitted its report and recommendations on January 30, 2026, citing examples of lawyers making credible threats of physical harm to clients, court staff, opposing counsel, or members of the public as the reason for considering an amendment. The Director subsequently filed an alternative proposal on May 5, 2026, and the Minnesota State Bar Association’s Professional Regulation Committee submitted comments on July 7, 2026. The Court has taken the matter under advisement. All these filings are available on the public access site for the Minnesota Appellate Courts, under case number ADM10-8043.

Lawyers Board Proposal

The Board’s proposal creates a new pre-petition suspension process but limits its use to a narrow set of circumstances. Under the Board’s newly proposed Rule 16(f), the Director could seek a temporary suspension before filing a petition for public discipline only when a judicial officer has found probable cause that a lawyer committed “a crime of such severity” that allowing the lawyer to continue practicing would pose “a substantial threat of serious harm to the public.” By requiring a prior probable cause determination by a judicial officer, the Board intentionally built an objective external trigger into the process.

Notably, the Board rejected a broader approach that would have allowed the Director to seek pre-petition relief whenever the Director believed a lawyer posed a substantial threat of harm. The Board expressed concern that such a standard would provide too much discretion and too little objective guidance. The Board also declined to limit the rule to specific categories of crimes, concluding that no list could adequately capture every circumstance that might present serious public safety concerns.

The Board also proposed an order-to-show-cause procedure prior to an order for temporary suspension. If the Court concluded that the Director had made a sufficient preliminary showing, it would issue an order requiring the lawyer to show cause why the lawyer’s authority to practice law should not be suspended or otherwise restricted. After providing the lawyer with an opportunity to be heard, the Court could temporarily suspend the lawyer or impose conditions on the lawyer’s practice while the investigation remained pending. The proposal expressly authorizes restrictions short of suspension and allows the Court to refer factual disputes to a referee when necessary.

The Director’s Proposal

The Director would take a broader approach by expanding Rule 16(a) and (d) to allow temporary suspension or other license restrictions before or after a petition for public discipline is filed whenever continued practice poses a “substantial threat of serious harm to clients, the public or the administration of justice.” The proposed language would broaden both the timing of relief and the categories of harm that could justify intervention. The Director’s proposal is not dependent upon the existence of criminal charges or any judicial finding of probable cause.

The most significant addition is the creation of a new Rule 16(f) creating an expedited temporary suspension process for lawyers convicted of “serious crimes.” Unlike the Board’s proposal, which focuses on criminal charges, the Director’s proposal focuses on convictions and the Director’s discretion to interpret what constitutes a “serious crime.” A serious crime would be defined as a felony for which the likely discipline, based on Minnesota precedent, would be disbarment or a suspension of more than one year. Once the Director determines that a conviction falls within that category, interim suspension would be presumptive unless the Court finds extraordinary circumstances. The Director modeled this portion of the proposal on the American Bar Association’s Model Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement serious-crime provisions and similar rules adopted in other jurisdictions.

MSBA Professional Regulation Committee Comments

The Professional Regulation Committee supports the Director’s broader framework but recommends targeted revisions to constrain discretion and provide clearer standards. (In the interest of full disclosure, the author was on the subcommittee involved in drafting the MSBA comment). The Committee agreed with expanding Rule 16 to permit pre-petition relief and supports the Director’s proposed procedures but was concerned that key terms in the Director’s proposal are too vague.

The Committee’s principal criticism is the proposed use of the word “substantial” in Rule 16(a). In the Committee’s view, the proposal does not adequately define what conduct creates a sufficiently substantial threat to justify pre-petition suspension proceedings. To reduce ambiguity, the Committee recommends tying the standard more closely to Rule 8.4(b) of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct by limiting triggering conduct to criminal acts that reflect adversely on a lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer. The Committee believes this would provide a more predictable and objective standard while maintaining the flexibility sought by the Director.

The Committee also objects to the Director’s proposed definition of a “serious crime” in Rule 16(f) because the determination turns on the Director’s prediction of what discipline the Court would likely impose in the future. The Committee noted that this standard introduces subjectivity, requires speculation about future disciplinary outcomes, and risks inconsistent application. The Committee was concerned that mitigating factors, such as personal stress, can make discipline harder to predict. The Court may consider mitigating factors when deciding whether to impose a lesser sanction than precedent would otherwise suggest, even in cases involving misconduct that presumptively warrants disbarment, such as misappropriation of client funds. Instead, the Committee recommends grounding the definition of a serious crime in more objective criteria, such as offense-based categories or conduct already addressed by Rule 8.4(b).

Competing Approaches

While all three submissions support some form of pre-petition intervention, they differ in how broadly that authority should extend and what procedural safeguards should accompany it. The Board’s proposal is intentionally narrow. It would allow a fast-track suspension proceeding only after a judicial officer finds probable cause to support criminal charges and only when the charged conduct poses a substantial threat of serious harm to the public. This approach reflects the Board’s view that suspension before a petition for public discipline is filed should remain rare and should be tied to an objective, independently verified event. That requirement significantly limits the Director’s discretion.

The Director’s proposal is broader. Rather than limiting the fast-track process to cases involving criminal charges, it would allow the Court to act whenever a lawyer’s continued practice poses a substantial threat of serious harm to clients, the public, or the administration of justice. The Director opines that some of the most serious risks, such as trust account violations, or client abandonment, do not arise from criminal conduct at all. Under the Director’s proposal, those situations could warrant the Court’s intervention before a disciplinary petition is filed.

The proposals also differ in their treatment of “serious harm.” The Board’s report focuses on situations involving threats of physical harm and public safety concerns. The Director takes a broader view, arguing that serious harm may also include financial harm to clients, trust account violations, abandonment of client matters, and conduct that undermines the administration of justice. As a result, the Director’s proposal implicates a wider range of misconduct than the Board’s proposal.

Another significant distinction is the role assigned to the Director. The Board’s proposal intentionally limits the Director’s discretion by requiring an external trigger and a judicial probable cause determination before the process can begin. The Director’s proposal, by contrast, places greater reliance on the Director’s judgment regarding when circumstances warrant Court intervention.

At its core, the debate is not about whether the Court should have authority to act quickly in extraordinary circumstances. All the stakeholders agree that some form of expedited process is appropriate. The disagreement concerns how broad that authority should be and what safeguards should apply before a lawyer’s license may be temporarily suspended. The Board’s proposal favors a narrow remedy triggered by objective, external events and accompanied by significant procedural protections. The Director’s proposal would provide the Court with greater flexibility to address a broader range of risks to clients, the public, and the administration of justice. The MSBA comments support expanded authority but seek clearer standards and additional constraints on discretion. The Court’s eventual decision will determine whether Rule 16 remains a narrowly focused remedy reserved for exceptional cases or evolves into a broader tool for addressing perceived threats during the investigative stage of the disciplinary process.

Endnote

[1] Rule 16(e) does permit a form of fast track to temporary suspension but only in the very limited circumstance where a referee has recommended that a lawyer be disbarred. The Rule provides the lawyer would be temporarily suspended pending final determination of the disciplinary proceedings. The procedures being proposed by the Board and Director would be in addition to this procedure.

Cassie Hanson is a legal ethics lawyer with substantial experience in the field of ethics and professional responsibility. As Ethics Counsel at Fredrikson & Byron, P.A., Cassie is focused on legal ethics, conflict prevention and resolution, legal malpractice/loss prevention and trust account compliance. Additionally, Cassie worked for 20 years as a senior litigator and adviser at the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility. Cassie investigated and prosecuted high-level attorney discipline cases. She is an experienced trial attorney and appellate advocate who regularly argued complex attorney discipline cases in front of the Minnesota Supreme Court. She has advised various government agencies, law firms and other stakeholders on legal ethics and professional responsibility. Cassie is a frequent public speaker on ethics and lawyer well-being.