Cited by

“In Minnesota we recognize that the practice of law ‘is a privilege, not a right.’ ” Redburn, d at 339 ().

See In re Swanson , (“[E]vidence of a ‘moral change’ must come not only from an observed record of appropriate conduct, but from the petitioner’s own state of mind and his values” (emphasis added)).

The evidence of this moral change “ must come not only from an observed record of appropriate conduct, but from the petitioner’s own state of mind and his values.”

(d 892, 893 (Minn. 1987)).

(quoting In re Swanson , , 893 (Minn. 1987) ).

tions, which demonstrated his honesty, was evidence of moral change of attorney who was disbarred, in part, for dishonest conduct); Mose IV, d at 363 (concluding that Mose had not demonstrated evidence of moral change, in part, because he failed to show any changes he had made that would ensure he would not neglect or incompetently represent clients if he were reinstated); (denying reinstatement because the petitioner’s testimony showed that he had not accepted responsibility for his misconduct)

Evidence of moral change comes from an observed record of appropriate conduct by the petitioner, as well as “the petitioner’s own state of mind and his values.” In re Kadrie, 602 N:W.2d 868, 870 (Minn.1999) ().

In Minnesota we recognize that the practice of law “is a privi *339 lege, not a right.”

Evidence of a moral change “must come not only from an observed record of appropriate conduct, but from the petitioner’s own state of mind and his values.” [hereinafter Swanson II].

See also In re Discipline of Swanson (Swanson II), (petitioner’s burden of proof to justify reinstatement is to establish a moral change by clear and convincing proof).