Prominent Twin Cities attorney Michael Padden disbarred over harm to clients

Michael Padden, a prominent Twin Cities attorney for several clients who alleged police misconduct, was disbarred Wednesday by the Minnesota Supreme Court for misappropriating client funds, failing to return unearned fees, failing to appear at hearings involving client matters and violating rules of professional conduct.

Padden harmed seven clients, the high court said, citing the findings from the Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility and a subsequent recommendation from a court-appointed referee to have Padden disbarred.

“Most egregiously,” the high court said, Padden misappropriated $25,000 from a client who was undocumented. He also failed to return the unearned fees he retained in connection with two other clients.

At a hearing before a court referee, Padden testified that he had recently been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and that he had suffered from depression most of his life.

Padden, according to the high court, “provided almost no evidence of these conditions other than his own testimony.”

Padden also claimed “he was experiencing various problems throughout the time of his misconduct that negatively affected his business, including that he lost his phone and that his longtime assistant briefly went to work elsewhere,” the court said. “The referee, assessing Padden’s credibility and the evidence presented, rejected these arguments in support of mitigation.”

Padden and his clients have often been in the headlines 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.

Padden also 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, who has been an attorney in Minnesota for 38 years, did not respond to several text and email messages seeking a reaction to the disbarment decision.

The high court declined to rule on a central accusation against Padden, raised by the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility, alleging that he counseled a Minnesota client not to show up for sentencing in a Wisconsin court. The client was eventually arrested and went to prison.

In a brief and in oral arguments before the high court, Padden denied he ever gave his client advice to abscond and offered a vigorous defense of his role in the case.

The court did not explain why it did not discuss that accusation. Joseph Daly, an emeritus professor at Mitchell Hamline School of Law who has followed the case, said the Supreme Court might have concluded that while the facts in that case were not crystal clear, other accusations against Padden were clear and provided sufficient reason for disbarment.

Although another attorney helped Padden with his written responses to the high court, he represented himself during oral arguments. Daly said that violated a bedrock principle that a lawyer who represents oneself in court has “a fool for a client.” The point, Daly said, is that “it is too stressful to represent yourself. You can’t see the forest for the trees.”

In recommending disbarment, the Supreme Court cited the case of an undocumented immigrant, referred to as J.V.-C, who was arrested in California in 2021 and extradited to Minnesota on an outstanding warrant. He retained Padden for a $30,000 flat fee.

While in custody, J.V.-C agreed that if he received a sentence of more than a year, which would trigger deportation proceedings, Padden would refund $25,000 of the fee. Their agreement was updated to say that.

J.V.-C was sentenced to 20 months in prison and deportation proceedings began, but Padden failed to refund the $25,000. When J.V.-C’s wife objected, the high court said, Padden sent her a handwritten attachment titled “Amendment to Fee Agreement,” but the high court said J.V.-C’s signature on the amendment was forged.

Padden has returned no portion of the $25,000. Without the refunded money, J.V.-C’s family was forced to take out an expensive loan to build a well, the high court said.

The Supreme Court cited a 2022 case in which a client paid Padden an $8,500 advance fee and then terminated the representation three days later; Padden refused to return the money, saying he had spent more than 30 hours on the matter. In another 2022 case, Padden was paid a $5,000 flat fee but withdrew from the case and did not return the unearned portions of the fee, the court said.

The high court said that in 2023 Padden failed to appear for at least five court hearings in four matters. It said that during the investigation by the Lawyers Responsibility Office, Padden failed to respond to many of the complaints against him.

Citing previous court decisions, the court found that Padden’s “misconduct was neither a ‘brief lapse in judgment’ nor a ‘single isolated incident.’ ”

Daly said lawyers can petition the state Supreme Court to be reinstated if they are suspended or disbarred, “but there is almost zero chance that they will let you back in if you’ve been disbarred.”