In Re Reinstatement to the Practice of Law of Pinotti

Supreme Court of Minnesota

In Re Reinstatement to the Practice of Law of Pinotti

617 N.W.2d 400, 2000 Minn. LEXIS 552, 2000 WL 1358116

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedSeptember 12, 2000

DocketC8-97-1955

StatusPublished

This text of 617 N.W.2d 400 (In Re Reinstatement to the Practice of Law of Pinotti) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Reinstatement to the Practice of Law of Pinotti, 617 N.W.2d 400, 2000 Minn. LEXIS 552, 2000 WL 1358116 (Mich. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

AMENDED ORDER

On August 3, 1999, this court reinstated petitioner Michael A. Pinotti to the practice of law subject to one year of supervised probation and numerous conditions, including the following:

Until further order, petitioner shall not engage in litigation of any matters except routine debt collection and personal injury without associating with counsel experienced in the area of the proposed litigation and obtaining that attorney’s signature on all pleadings and briefs.

It appears petitioner has completed supervised probation without incident. Petitioner now moves the court for an order lifting the above-stated practice restriction. The Director takes no position on the motion.

Petitioner has not submitted any evidence that he is currently fit to handle matters more complex than routine debt collection or personal injury on his own. The motion is based solely on petitioner’s completion of probation. The fact that he successfully completed probation does not, by itself, establish that petitioner should be permitted to engage in more complex litigation on his own in light of the underlying misconduct in this matter. Therefore, this court concludes that the practice restriction should remain in effect. However, if petitioner supplements his motion with additional evidence that the practice restriction is no longer necessary, this court will reconsider the motion.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to lift the practice restric *401 tion contained in the August 3, 1999 reinstatement order is denied.

BY THE COURT:

Alan C. Page Associate Justice

RUSSELL H. ANDERSON, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

AMENDED ORDER

On August 3, 1999, this court reinstated petitioner Michael A. Pinotti to the practice of law subject to one year of supervised probation and numerous conditions, including the following:

Until further order, petitioner shall not engage in litigation of any matters except routine debt collection and personal injury without associating with counsel experienced in the area of the proposed litigation and obtaining that attorney’s signature on all pleadings and briefs.

It appears petitioner has completed supervised probation without incident. Petitioner now moves the court for an order lifting the above-stated practice restriction. The Director takes no position on the motion.

Petitioner has not submitted any evidence that he is currently fit to handle matters more complex than routine debt collection or personal injury on his own. The motion is based solely on petitioner’s completion of probation. The fact that he successfully completed probation does not, by itself, establish that petitioner should be permitted to engage in more complex litigation on his own in light of the underlying misconduct in this matter. Therefore, this court concludes that the practice restriction should remain in effect. However, if petitioner supplements his motion with additional evidence that the practice restriction is no longer necessary, this court will reconsider the motion.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to lift the practice restric *401 tion contained in the August 3, 1999 reinstatement order is denied.

BY THE COURT:

Alan C. Page Associate Justice

RUSSELL H. ANDERSON, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

617 N.W.2d 400, 2000 Minn. LEXIS 552, 2000 WL 1358116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-reinstatement-to-the-practice-of-law-of-pinotti-minn-2000.