Cited by

d 173, 175 (Minn. 2003); (holding that more severe sanctions are warranted when the current misconduct is similar to misconduct for which the attorney has already been disciplined); –85 (Minn. 2022) (same).

In re Cutting , (providing that “previous misconduct of the same type is considered an aggravating factor”).

In re Cutting , , 175 (Minn. 2003) ; see also In re Milloy , , 46 (Minn. 1997) ("This court looks closely at prior misconduct, especially when current misconduct occurs while an attorney is on probation.").

See In re Cutting , , 175 (Minn. 2003) ("[P]revious misconduct of the same type is considered an aggravating factor when determining the appropriate discipline.").

(providing that “previous misconduct of the same type is considered an aggravating factor”).

(holding that similar prior misconduct weighs more heavily in later discipline proceedings for the same attorney).

(“This court has imposed more severe sanctions when the current misconduct is similar to misconduct for which the attorney has already been disciplined.”).

(“[F]ailure to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation, in and of itself, constitutes an act of misconduct that warrants indefinite suspension.”); (stating that we “[have] disciplined lawyers who failed to comply with court orders and failed to appear at hearings”).

See, (describing neglect as "serious professional misconduct" for which an indefinite suspension is typically imposed); ("[Nloneoop-eration with a disciplinary investigation is a serious offense which may warrant suspension.").