STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN SUPREME COURT

C7-98-2122
C4-98-2062

S Y L L A B U S

Race-based misconduct by attorneys is an inherently serious matter. Therefore, it is arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable for a panel of the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board to conclude that an attorney's race-based misconduct was "non-serious."

Although the Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility preclude a panel from issuing a private admonition to an attorney whose misconduct is inherently serious, this court has plenary authority to determine what discipline is appropriate and to order that discipline. In so doing, we consider the specific facts of the misconduct, together with any mitigating factors present in the particular case.

In light of the isolated nature of respondent's misconduct, the lack of public harm, and respondent's prompt apology and sincere remorse, respondent's misconduct is deserving of a private admonition.

Panel decision reversed. Private admonition ordered.

Considered and decided by the court en banc without oral argument.

O P I N I O N

PER CURIAM.

This matter is before us on a petition by complainants to review a decision of a panel of the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board (Panel) issuing a private admonition to respondent attorney for respondent's race-based misconduct. Race-based misconduct by an attorney is an inherently serious matter. Because the Panel's issuance of a private admonition stemmed from its conclusion that respondent's conduct was "non-serious," we reverse. However, our independent review of the circumstances surrounding respondent's misconduct, together with the various mitigating factors present in this case, lead us to conclude that private admonition is the appropriate discipline for respondent.

The essential facts of this case are undisputed. Respondent was admitted to practice law in Minnesota in 1990. Since that time she has worked as a prosecutor in several Minnesota counties. In 1998, she took a position as a special assistant county attorney in an office and county where she had not previously worked.

Among the first cases assigned to respondent was a criminal matter involving W.M., an African-American male charged with two counts of felony robbery of a Caucasian couple. According to the complaint, W.M. had approached the couple in a restaurant parking lot and "asked them for some money, suggesting that he needed a ride some place." When the couple refused to give W.M. money, he became verbally abusive and "at one point reached around with one of his hands to the back of his pants and stated 'Man, I ought to' as if he may pull out a weapon." The couple told W.M. that they did not have any money but that they had a checkbook. W.M. then "directed" them to write him a check for $15 dollars and the female member of the couple did so. W.M. and the couple then went into the restaurant where W.M. tried to cash the check. W.M. implied that "if [the couple] called the police, he would do something to them." W.M. eventually left, after which the couple "became very emotional and told restaurant employees that they had been robbed." After returning home, the couple reported the incident to the police. Based on these facts, W.M. was charged with simple robbery pursuant to Minn. Stat.