Supreme Court Digest: Feb. 13.

Byline: Minnesota Lawyer

Civil

Attorney Discipline

Reinstatement

Petitioner Larry S. Severson filed a petition for reinstatement to the practice of law. In 2015, Severson was indefinitely suspended, with no right to petition for reinstatement for at least 1 year. After considering Severson's petition, a panel of the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board recommended reinstatement, concluding that Severson had "prove[n] by clear and convincing evidence that he has undergone the requisite moral change to render him fit to resume the practice of law and has demonstrated sufficient remorse for his misconduct." The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility challenged a number of the panel's findings and disagreed with the panel's recommendation.

The Supreme Court held that (1) based on its independent review of the record, the panel's finding that petitioner proved that he had undergone the requisite moral change was not clearly erroneous; and (2) because petitioner had shown by clear and convincing evidence that he satisfied the requirements for reinstatement to the practice of law in Minnesota, reinstatement was proper, subject to a 2-year period of probation. Petition granted.

A17-0895 In re Severson (Original Jurisdiction)

http://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/Appellate/Supreme%20Court/Standard%20Opinions/OPA170895-021319.pdf

Public Employees

Arbitration

This appeal was from an arbitration award reinstating a police officer after respondent city discharged him for failing to report his use of force and violating other policies. Officer, through his union, appellant, filed a grievance with the city. The dispute was arbitrated, and the arbitrator found that, because officer did not use excessive force and his decision not to report the use of force was a "lapse in judgment," the city did not have just cause to discharge officer. The arbitrator ordered reinstatement, with back pay, but with a three-shift unpaid suspension. The District Court denied the city's motion to vacate the award. The Court of Appeals reversed. The Court of Appeals held that enforcement of the arbitration award would violate well-defined and dominant public policies against excessive force, and interfere with policies that favor transparency and proper reporting of the use of force and require police departments to hold police officers accountable for their conduct.

The Supreme Court held that an arbitration award reinstating a police officer...