In Re Petition for Reinstatement to the Practice of Law of Richard J. Kadrie, Petitioner.

Annotate this Case
In Re Petition for Reinstatement to the Practice of Law of Richard J. Kadrie. C5-90-383, Supreme Court Order, March 21, 2002.

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN SUPREME COURT

C5-90-383

 

In Re Petition for Reinstatement to the

Practice of Law of Richard J. Kadrie.

 

O R D E R

 

The court reinstated petitioner Richard J. Kadrie to the practice of law on December 9, 1999.  In re Kadrie, 602 N.W.2d 868 (Minn. 1999).   Petitioner was placed on supervised probation for two years and barred from practicing law as a sole practitioner.  Id. at 873.  The court provided that after two years, petitioner could request that the practice restriction be lifted by filing an affidavit with the court and giving notice to the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility (OLPR) of his request.  Id.  The court also provided that if the OLPR had good cause, it could request a hearing on whether it is appropriate to lift the practice restriction.  Id.

Petitioner has filed an affidavit stating that he has successfully completed supervised probation and requesting that the restriction on solo practice be lifted.  The OLPR states that it does not have good cause to request a hearing on petitioner's request.

Based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein,

            IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the request of Richard J. Kadrie to return to the solo practice of law be, and the same is, granted effective immediately.

            Dated:   March 12, 2002

                                                                                    BY THE COURT:

                                                                                

                                                                                    /s/Paul H. Anderson

                                                                                    Associate Justice

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.