Accused of misconduct, attorney Michael Padden argues to Supreme Court that he’s been ‘railroaded’

Longtime Twin Cities attorney Michael Padden told the Minnesota Supreme Court on Wednesday that he was being “railroaded” by the state’s Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility, which is recommending he be disbarred for multiple acts of alleged misconduct.

Padden is accused of lying to a judge and clients, misappropriating client funds, forging clients’ names on documents, neglecting client matters, failing to maintain required trust account books and records, failing to make court appearances and not cooperating with the investigation against him. The OLPR made its case to the Minnesota Supreme Court, which will decide Padden’s fate. He argued in his own defense.

“The only appropriate discipline is disbarment,” said Timothy Burke, OLPR attorney.

Padden countered that the accusations were “outrageous,” adding that “I never stole a dime.” He said he missed only some court appearances in 2023 after he lost his cellphone and changed legal assistants. He indicated that the case that had been mounted against him was fraught with inaccurate information, and that a court-appointed referee who reviewed the case “rubber-stamped” the OLPR findings.

“I did not engage in any unethical conduct,” he said.

The case against him was partly based on claims by clients that Padden had forged their names on documents allowing him to retain their funds under false premises. Padden denied the forgeries. “[The OLPR] didn’t retain a handwriting expert,” Padden said. “How can I defend against that?”

OLPR director Susan Humiston said in a brief interview after the hearing that the office did not retain a handwriting expert, but said that the court-appointed referee who recommended Padden’s disbarment “made his determination based upon all of the evidence submitted to him including the testimony of all parties involved.”

Several Supreme Court justices asked questions of both Padden and Burke, including Chief Justice Natalie Hudson. On average, the court issues its decisions 4½ months after oral arguments, but there is no time limit on when it might do so.

Padden and his clients have occasionally been in the headlines, often in cases over allegations of misconduct by police. He represented the family of Terrance Franklin, a 22-year-old Black man killed by Minneapolis police in 2013, and later wrote a book about the case. He defended Diamond Reynolds in an assault case; before that, she became famous for livestreaming the fatal shooting of her boyfriend, Philando Castile, by a St. Anthony police officer in 2016. Padden has been an attorney in Minnesota for 38 years.

In his opening statement, Burke accused Padden of misappropriating “to his own benefit” more than $250,000. “The way he ran his trust account was like a scheme, where he disbursed money from his trust account not as the rules required, but as he needed.”

Rather than misappropriating money from his clients, Padden argued to the Supreme Court, he offered discounts and waived fees to clients, saving them more than $200,000. “Does this sound like a crook?” Padden asked the justices.

One of the central findings against Padden, the court referee concluded, involved his representation of Steven Sweet, who was charged with credit card fraud in Wisconsin and had entered a plea agreement under which he pleaded guilty in exchange for a prosecutorial recommendation of four months in jail. In 2022, while Sweet and his wife were in a Wisconsin hotel blocks from the courthouse before sentencing, Sweet and his wife alleged Sweet received a phone call from Padden informing him that a presentence investigation came to a harsher conclusion than anticipated and if it were him, he would leave Wisconsin and not return because Wisconsin would not extradite him from out of state. In fact, the presentence investigation recommended a suspended jail sentence.

Sweet said he took Padden’s alleged advice and fled the state. Padden lied to the court, saying he did not know why Sweet fled, according to the court referee. Sweet was arrested and extradited and spent two and a half years in prison.

At Wednesday’s hearing, Padden denied he had made a phone call advising Sweet to abscond. He said that when Sweet was ultimately sentenced and pleaded guilty, he did not mention the call, evidence that it never happened.

Padden cited a letter from the Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation that there was “an insufficient basis to proceed” with an investigation into allegations of misconduct by Padden. “Wisconsin determined I did nothing wrong,” Padden said.

Burke countered that the letter came from the Wisconsin office’s intake department, that it was a preliminary evaluation and there had been no investigation.

“Do you acknowledge any conduct where you were wrong?” Justice Gordon Moore asked Padden. Padden said he had made some “technical violations,” adding, “Your Honor, I recognized long ago I made mistakes.”

In a memorandum, Padden said the “appropriate remedy” was to reinstate him so he could “get back to his former clients who desperately need him.” He recommended he be given a “short course of probation” regarding the trust account transactions. He said the hearings he missed were “a blip in [his] long career and is an easy fix for [him].”