Cited by

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

Instead, we have repeatedly said that when neither party orders a transcript, the referee’s findings of fact and conclusions drawn from those facts are “conclusive.” See , Montez, d at 66; d 446, 449 (Minn. 2005).

(imposing discipline for, inter alia, failing to communicate with a district court).

-49 (Minn. 2005) (publicly reprimanding an attorney for failing to attend a court hearing, neglecting to inform the court that she would not be attending the hearing, and not advising her client that he needed to appear at the hearing); (order) (publicly reprimanding

- Letourneau, d at 452 () (internal quotation marks omitted).

We generally impose “more severe sanctions when the current misconduct is similar to misconduct for which the attorney has already been disciplined.”

We are inclined to impose “more severe sanctions when the current misconduct is similar to misconduct for which the attorney has already been disciplined.”

Conduct 1.3; , 448 n. 1 (Minn.2005) (attorneys neglect that results in dismissal of the client’s case is a violation of Minn. R. Prof.

We generally impose “more severe sanctions when the current misconduct is similar to misconduct for which the attorney has already been disciplined.”

(6) Following respondent’s reinstatement, respondent is placed on supervised probation for two years upon the terms set forth in the court’s February 24, 2005, opinion ().