Legal Opinion
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Holker
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided May 21, 2009No. A06-896PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
2Per curiam
Kenneth M. Holker filed a petition for reinstatement following his indefinite suspension from the practice of law. After a hearing, a panel of the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board recommended against Holker’s reinstatement. The panel concluded that Holker failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he had undergone the requisite moral change for reinstatement or recognized that his conduct was wrong. Holker contests the panel’s findings in this appeal; the Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility supports the panel’s recommendation. After…
3Cases cited9 opinions
- In Re Application of Strand for Reinstatement to Practice LawSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1961
- In Re Reinstatement to the Practice of Law of KadrieSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1999
- In Re Reinstatement of TrygstadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1991
- In Re Reinstatement of ReutterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1991
- In Re Petition for Reinstatement of MoseSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2008
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by7 opinions
- In re Reinstatement of StockmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2017
- In Re Petition for Reinstatement of DedefoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2010
- F. Lee Bailey v. Board of Bar ExaminersSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2014
- In re Reinstatement to the Practice of Law of LieberSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2013
- In Re Petition for Reinstatement of Clark Calvin GRIFFITH, II, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0175638Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2016
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.