Tribal Courts Recognized as “Jurisdictions” for Reciprocal Discipline; Minnesota Clarifies the RLPR 12(d) Analysis and Rejects Comity Weighting

Introduction

In In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Wesley R. Martins, 24 N.W.3d 659 (Minn. 2025), the Minnesota Supreme Court addressed reciprocal discipline under Rule 12(d) of the Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR) when the originating discipline came from a tribal court. The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility petitioned for reciprocal discipline after the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Court of Appeals sanctioned Minnesota attorney Wesley R. Martins with a one-year suspension, a public reprimand, and a required public apology for misconduct occurring in the tribal court.

The case presents three core issues:

• Whether tribal courts are “jurisdictions” under RLPR 12(d) for reciprocal discipline purposes.
• Whether the tribal court’s disciplinary procedures satisfied due process and fundamental fairness.
• Whether the discipline imposed by the tribal court is “unjust” or “substantially different” from discipline warranted in Minnesota, and what sanction Minnesota should impose.

The Court answered yes to the first question, found the tribal proceedings fair, and concluded that although identical discipline would not be unjust, the tribal sanction (suspension + apology) was “substantially different” from the discipline warranted in Minnesota for this misconduct. Minnesota therefore imposed a public reprimand and assessed $900 in costs under RLPR 24(a).

Summary of the Opinion

• Tribal courts qualify as “jurisdictions” under RLPR 12(d), allowing the Minnesota Director to seek reciprocal discipline based on tribal disciplinary orders.
• The Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Court of Appeals’ procedures were fair: Martins received notice of the allegations, responded in writing, and was served (by first-class mail) with notice of the disciplinary hearing.
• Identical reciprocal discipline was not “unjust” under the meaning clarified in In re Jensen, 12 N.W.3d 731 (Minn. 2024), because there was no new evidence showing changed circumstances making the original sanction unnecessary to protect the public.
• Applying Minnesota’s four-factor discipline framework, the Court determined that the misconduct warranted a public reprimand (without probation) in Minnesota.
• The tribal sanction—one-year suspension, public reprimand, and a required public apology—was “substantially different” from the Minnesota-warranted discipline. Minnesota therefore imposed only a public reprimand.
• The Court clarified that “comity” is not a factor in Minnesota’s RLPR 12(d) analysis; the Court first determines the Minnesota-appropriate sanction and only then compares it to the originating jurisdiction’s sanction to assess “substantial difference.”

Factual Background

Martins, a Minnesota lawyer admitted in 1970 with no prior Minnesota discipline, represented a client in the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Court of Central Jurisdiction. He appeared late to a May 8, 2023 remote hearing and was unprepared; the court continued the matter to May 24. On May 24, Martins again appeared late, requested a virtual breakout with his client, then left the breakout and the hearing to appear elsewhere without notifying the tribal judge. He returned at 2:50 p.m., after the tribal court had adjourned. The presiding judge filed two ethics complaints. Martins responded in writing, admitting tardiness but attributing it to overscheduling and minimizing harm; he suggested the judge should have handled the matter privately.

The Mille Lacs Band Court of Appeals held an in-person disciplinary hearing on August 15, 2023. Although mailed notice was provided, Martins did not appear. The court found violations of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1 (competence) and 1.3 (diligence), imposed a public reprimand, a one-year suspension from tribal practice, and required a public apology to the presiding judge. Martins did not self-report the discipline; the Minnesota Director learned of it from the tribe in October 2023 and petitioned for reciprocal discipline under RLPR 12(d).

Analysis

1) Precedents Cited and Their Role

• Tribal sovereignty and jurisdiction: The Court cited United States v. Cooley, 593 U.S. 345 (2021), and Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law to confirm tribes are sovereign governmental entities. Building on this, the Court held tribal courts are “jurisdictions” for RLPR 12(d) purposes, aligning with the Court’s long-standing recognition of reciprocal discipline from non-state entities such as federal courts and the USPTO.
• Prior discipline tied to tribal court practice: In re Michael, 836 N.W.2d 753 (Minn. 2013) (discipline for misconduct in a tribal court matter) demonstrated the Court’s readiness to regulate Minnesota attorneys for misconduct occurring in tribal courts, even though Martins is the first case deciding the reciprocal discipline dimension directly.
• Reciprocal discipline fairness and due process: In re Hawkins, 834 N.W.2d 663 (Minn. 2013) and In re Schmidt, 586 N.W.2d 774 (Minn. 1998) anchor the due process inquiry—notice of allegations and opportunity to respond. The Court also relied on In re Baird, 18 N.W.3d 529 (Minn. 2025), reiterating that proper service satisfies due process, regardless of a lawyer’s actual response.
• “Unjust” vs. “substantially different” clarified: In re Jensen, 12 N.W.3d 731 (Minn. 2024) separates the “unjust” inquiry from the “substantially different” inquiry under RLPR 12(d). The Court reiterated that “unjust” focuses on changed circumstances (e.g., new, material mitigation) that make the out-of-state sanction no longer necessary to protect the public, as in In re Otis, 582 N.W.2d 561 (Minn. 1998).
• Discipline calibration factors: The Court relied on In re Ulanowski, 800 N.W.2d 785 (Minn. 2011) and In re Nelson, 733 N.W.2d 458 (Minn. 2007) (four-factor test: nature of misconduct, cumulative weight, harm to the public, harm to the profession), and drew on guidance from cases such as In re Pearson, 888 N.W.2d 319 (Minn. 2016) (isolated incident vs. pattern), In re Nathanson, 812 N.W.2d 70 (Minn. 2012) (assessing harm), and aggravation decisions like In re Udeani, 945 N.W.2d 389 (Minn. 2020) and In re McGee, 865 N.W.2d 70 (Minn. 2015) (non-cooperation), and In re Winter, 770 N.W.2d 463 (Minn. 2009) (minimization and lack of remorse).
• No mitigation from clean record: In re Nett, 839 N.W.2d 716 (Minn. 2013); In re Jones, 834 N.W.2d 671 (Minn. 2013); and In re Aitken, 787 N.W.2d 152 (Minn. 2010) confirm that the absence of prior discipline is not mitigation; it is merely the absence of an aggravator.
• Comparable sanctions: In re Wood, 917 N.W.2d 421 (Minn. 2018) and In re Swanson, 709 N.W.2d 623 (Minn. 2006) support a public reprimand where an attorney’s competence/diligence lapses are limited to a small number of matters, sometimes with probation. The Court here found probation unnecessary.
• The “substantially different” benchmark: In re Overboe, 867 N.W.2d 482 (Minn. 2015) cautions against re-deciding the case as if it originated in Minnesota, and In re Thompson, 916 N.W.2d 687 (Minn. 2018), and In re Donohue, 922 N.W.2d 207 (Minn. 2019), illustrate that a months-long suspension is “substantially different” from a reprimand.

2) The Court’s Legal Reasoning

a) Tribal courts are “jurisdictions” under RLPR 12(d)

The Court took a first-of-its-kind step in Minnesota by explicitly holding that tribal courts count as “jurisdictions” for reciprocal discipline. This aligns with both the sovereign status of tribes and Minnesota’s existing practice of recognizing reciprocal discipline from other non-state tribunals (e.g., federal courts, USPTO). It also promotes coherence in regulating Minnesota lawyers whose multijurisdictional practices include tribal forums.

b) Fairness and due process were satisfied

RLPR 12(d) permits identical discipline unless the other jurisdiction’s procedures were unfair. The Court asks whether fundamental fairness and due process were observed—primarily whether the lawyer had notice and an opportunity to respond. Martins received written notice of the allegations, responded in writing, and was served with hearing notice by first-class mail, which the tribal rules expressly allow. Even if the tribal court’s reference to “certified mail” was inaccurate, first-class mail sufficed under the tribe’s rules, so due process was satisfied.

c) “Unjust” vs. “substantially different” are distinct inquiries; not unjust here

Relying on Jensen, the Court treated “unjust” as a narrow safety valve, typically triggered by new evidence showing changed circumstances post-discipline that render the original sanction unnecessary for public protection (as in Otis). No such change was shown here; thus, imposing identical discipline would not be unjust.

d) Minnesota first determines the sanction it would impose; comity not considered

Before comparing sanctions, the Court conducted its own de novo calibration under Minnesota law. Importantly, it rejected the Director’s suggestion that Minnesota should hew closely to the originating tribunal’s outcome as a matter of “comity.” The Court clarified that comity plays no role in RLPR 12(d) analysis. The sequence is:

1. Determine the Minnesota-appropriate sanction under Minnesota precedents and factors.
2. Compare that sanction to the originating jurisdiction’s sanction to decide whether the latter is “substantially different.”

e) Sanction warranted in Minnesota: public reprimand, no probation

Applying the four-factor test:

• Nature of misconduct: Competence and diligence violations (MRPC 1.1 and 1.3) based on repeated tardiness, lack of readiness, and unauthorized absence from a hearing to attend another matter.
• Cumulative weight: Single client matter across two hearings—no broader pattern or multiple client harm.
• Harm to the public/profession: Limited; while the proceedings were delayed and court resources burdened, there was no showing of significant client or systemic injury.
• Aggravation: Non-cooperation (failure to appear at the tribal appellate disciplinary hearing) and lack of remorse (minimizing and impugning the judge’s motives in the tribal proceedings). The Court noted Martins acknowledged fault at oral argument in Minnesota, but the lack of remorse at the time of the tribal proceedings remained aggravating.

The Court reaffirmed that a clean disciplinary record is not mitigation. Considering comparable Minnesota cases (Wood; Swanson), the Court selected a public reprimand. It declined to impose probation due to the isolated nature and relative modesty of the misconduct compared to matters where probation was used.

f) The tribal sanction was “substantially different” from the Minnesota-warranted sanction

The Mille Lacs Band’s discipline (one-year suspension, public reprimand, and required public apology) was markedly more severe than the Minnesota-appropriate sanction (public reprimand). Consistent with Thompson and Donohue, a months-long suspension exceeds the Minnesota range by a substantial margin. The Court also included the required public apology in its comparison, underscoring that Minnesota’s remedial framework did not warrant such relief in this case. Consequently, Minnesota imposed only a public reprimand and costs.

3) Impact and Forward-Looking Implications

a) Reciprocal discipline from tribal courts is now clearly authorized

Minnesota lawyers practicing in tribal courts should anticipate that public tribal discipline will be reported to, and can be enforced by, Minnesota through RLPR 12(d). This promotes uniform protection of clients and courts across sovereigns while respecting each jurisdiction’s procedures.

b) Methodology clarified; comity arguments will not control

The Court’s analytic sequence is now settled. Minnesota will:

• Calibrate discipline based on Minnesota standards.
• Reject comity-based pleas to “stay close” to the original sanction.
• Impose identical discipline only if (i) due process was satisfied, and (ii) the foreign sanction is neither unjust nor substantially different from the Minnesota-appropriate sanction.

c) Sanction comparators: suspensions vs. reprimands

The decision reinforces that suspensions of several months or more are “substantially different” from a public reprimand. Practitioners should expect the Court to maintain consistent internal calibration even when other jurisdictions choose more severe or different modalities (e.g., compelled public apologies).

d) Practice in remote hearings and multi-court obligations

Martins underscores core professionalism expectations in the remote era:

• Arrive on time and prepared; manage calendars to avoid conflicts.
• Never leave a hearing (even a breakout room) without permission and notice to the tribunal.
• If emergencies or conflicts arise, seek on-the-record guidance from the presiding judge.

e) Cooperation and remorse matter

The Court repeatedly treats non-cooperation and failure to acknowledge wrongdoing as aggravators. Counsel should promptly engage with disciplinary authorities, attend scheduled proceedings, and refrain from impugning judicial motives. A timely, sincere acknowledgment can attenuate potential aggravation.

f) Reporting obligations and cross-jurisdictional discipline

Although the Court did not impose discipline for failing to self-report, Minnesota lawyers should promptly report public discipline imposed elsewhere. Delays can compound concerns about cooperation and candor.

g) Tribal-state comity vs. reciprocity

The decision accords respect to tribal sovereignty by recognizing tribal courts as jurisdictions whose final adjudications may trigger reciprocal proceedings. At the same time, it safeguards Minnesota’s disciplinary coherence by insisting on Minnesota’s independent calibration of sanctions, rather than comity-based deference.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Reciprocal discipline (RLPR 12(d)): When an attorney is publicly disciplined in another jurisdiction, Minnesota can impose discipline based on that adjudication. Minnesota first checks fairness and due process, then decides whether identical discipline would be unjust or substantially different from what Minnesota would impose.
• “Jurisdiction” under RLPR 12(d): Includes sovereign tribal courts, not only the 50 states. This is now expressly settled in Minnesota.
• “Unjust” vs. “substantially different”:
  • Unjust: New, material circumstances show the foreign sanction is no longer needed to protect the public (rare; see Otis).
  • Substantially different: The foreign sanction is significantly harsher (or more lenient) than what Minnesota would impose, not merely somewhat different.
• Public reprimand vs. suspension vs. probation:
  • Public reprimand: A formal public censure; no interruption of practice.
  • Suspension: Temporary loss of the right to practice; here, the tribal court imposed one year.
  • Probation: Practice continues subject to conditions and oversight; not imposed here.
• Aggravating vs. mitigating factors: Aggravators increase discipline (e.g., non-cooperation, lack of remorse). A clean record is not mitigation; it simply avoids an aggravator.
• Due process in discipline: Notice of allegations and an opportunity to respond. Service consistent with governing rules (e.g., first-class mail where permitted) generally satisfies due process.
• Comity: A discretionary respect for another jurisdiction’s decisions. Minnesota clarified that comity does not factor into RLPR 12(d) calibration; Minnesota sets its own sanction first and then compares.
• MRPC 1.1 and 1.3: Lawyers must provide competent and diligent representation, including controlling workload and appearing prepared and on time.

Practical Guidance for Practitioners

• When practicing in tribal courts, treat them as full sovereign tribunals for ethical and disciplinary purposes; Minnesota will honor their adjudications under RLPR 12(d).
• If disciplined elsewhere, promptly notify Minnesota’s Director; do not wait for cross-jurisdictional communication to reach Minnesota.
• In remote proceedings, obtain explicit leave before stepping away, even from breakout rooms; manage dockets to avoid double-booking.
• Cooperate fully in disciplinary processes and avoid ad hominem assertions against judges; lack of cooperation and improper accusations can aggravate discipline.
• Do not rely on a historically clean record for mitigation; demonstrate proactive remediation and insight into what went wrong.

Conclusion

In re Martins establishes two important guideposts in Minnesota lawyer regulation. First, tribal courts are recognized as “jurisdictions” under RLPR 12(d), meaning their public disciplinary adjudications can trigger reciprocal discipline proceedings in Minnesota. Second, Minnesota clarified the structure of RLPR 12(d) analysis: the Court independently determines the appropriate Minnesota sanction without comity weighting and then evaluates whether the foreign sanction is unjust or substantially different. Applying those principles, the Court concluded that a public reprimand—not a suspension or compelled apology—is the discipline warranted in Minnesota for Martins’s isolated competence and diligence violations aggravated by non-cooperation and lack of remorse at the time of the tribal proceedings.

The decision meaningfully advances comity-respecting reciprocity with tribal courts while preserving Minnesota’s internal consistency and due process safeguards. It offers clear guidance to multijurisdictional practitioners on the standards for remote hearing conduct, cooperation with disciplinary authorities, and the limits of deference to originating jurisdictions in reciprocal discipline.