Cited by

i II), 15 (stating that the failure to return unearned fees harms the legal profession because “misuse of funds ‘entrusted to an attorney as a fiduciary for his clients is a breach of trust that reflects poorly on the entire legal profession and erodes the public’s confidence in lawyers’ ” ()); (recognizing that attorneys who make false statements to courts harm the legal profession, as we place “great weight on the reputation of the legal community as honest and truthful”).

“Because we strive for consistency in attorney discipline, we look to similar cases for guidance in setting the proper sanction.”

Misappropriation of client funds “is a breach of trust that reflects poorly on the entire legal profession and erodes the public’s confidence in lawyers.”

When misappropriation involves “other ethical violations in addition to the misappropriation, particularly misrepresentations to conceal the misappropriation, mitigating factors usually will not militate against disbarment.” d 263, 272 (Minn. 2006); (stating that an attorney’s “dishonesty after his misappropriation of funds further support[ed] 13 disbarment” where the attorney “made misrepresentations and gave false documents to clients to conceal

Misappropriation of client funds “is a breach of trust that reflects poorly on the entire legal profession and erodes the public’s confidence in lawyers.”

reflects poorly on the entire legal profession and erodes the public’s confidence in lawyers.”

See, e.g. , Klotz, d at 340 (determining that the attorney’s lack of selfish motivation in intentionally mis appropriating client funds was a mitigating factor); (concluding that the attorney’s lack of intent to permanently deprive clients of their funds mitigated his intentional misappropriation); In re Rooney , (discussing the attorney’s intent to 19 4.

See In re Fairbairn , , 747 (Minn. 2011) (citing In re Rooney , , 272 (Minn. 2006) ).

In re Rooney , , 270 (Minn. 2006).

See In re Rooney , , 272 (Minn. 2006).

See In re Rooney , , 271 n.4 (Minn. 2006) ; In re Kaszynski , , 712 (Minn. 2001) (recognizing lack of remorse as an aggravating factor).

See Fairbairn , d at 745 ; see also In re Rooney , , 272 (Minn. 2006) ("Turmoil in an attorney's personal life has been considered a mitigating factor even without proof that the turmoil caused the misconduct.").

“Misappropriation of client funds constitutes serious misconduct that generally warrants disbarment.”

“Because we strive for consistency in attorney discipline, we look to similar cases for guidance in setting the proper sanction.” Respondent’s conduct was a serious breach of the standards of professional conduct required of an attorney licensed in Minnesota.

See, eg., 272 (Minn. 2006) (suspending attorney who misappropriated funds for 18 months after noting numerous mitigating circumstances), “Whether the presence of mitigating circumstances will allow an attorney to avoid disbarment for misappropriation depends on the severity of.

We distinguish between “ ‘a brief lapse in judgment’ or ‘a single, isolated incident’ ” and multiple instances of misconduct “occurring over a substantial amount of time.” ( ).

(“Misappropriation of funds entrusted to an attorney as a fiduciary for his clients is a breach of trust that reflects poorly on the entire legal profession and erodes the public’s confidence in lawyers.”).

(acknowledging that although only one rule was violated, Glasser’s “misconduct was neither a single, isolated incident nor a brief lapse in judgment”); (concluding that 30 instances of misappropriation over 2 years aggravated the severity of the *167 misconduct); (concluding that 17 instances of misappropriation over the course of one year warranted a more severe sanction).

“Misappropriation of funds entrusted to an attorney as a fiduciary for his clients is a breach of trust that reflects poorly on the entire legal profession and erodes the public’s confidence in lawyers.”

See, (deeming it important that the attorney’s misconduct occurred over the course of a year and “was not a single, isolated incident or a brief lapse in judgment”).

With respect to the cumulative weight of Kennedy’s misconduct, we have differentiated between “a single, isolated incident or a brief lapse in judgment,” and misconduct that “persisted for an extended period of time and spanned multiple matters.”

n.4 (Minn. 2006) (noting that a lack of remorse aggravates the misconduct).