Cited by

Misconduct that includes multiple rule violations and persists over time is more serious than “single isolated incident[s]” or “brief lapse[s] in 8 judgment.” (alteration in original); 269 (Minn. 2006) (concluding that 17 instances of misappropriation totaling $27,700 over a year did not constitute “a single, isolated incident or a brief lapse in judgment”).

volving significant amounts of money.” d at 681 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); (stating that six acts of misappropriation totaling $144,000 and two acts of unintentional misappropriation over the course of nearly 13 months were not isolated incidents or a brief lapse in judgment); (concluding that 17 instances *630 of misappropriation totaling $27,700 over a year did not constitute “a single, isolated incident or a brief lapse in judgment”).

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

To mitigate, however, the restitution must not be prompted by fear of getting caught.” *680 271 (Minn.2006) (citations omitted); see also Fairbairn, d at 746 (holding that the referee should consider full restitution occurring before the attorney is notified of a disciplinary investigation as a mitigating factor); Hanvik, d at 239 (holding the Referee properly found that restitution w

That is because the 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.”

Compare (concluding a single instance of misconduct did not warrant enhanced discipline), with (concluding 30 instances of misappropriation warranted enhanced discipline), and (concluding that 17 instances of misappropriation warranted enhanced discipline).

Voss’s misappropriation of $12,400 in client funds and failure to provide restitution to other clients from whom he kept unearned fees not only caused his clients to suffer financial harm but constituted a “breach of trust that reflects poorly on the entire legal profession and erodes the public’s confidence in lawyers.”

Fru’s professional misconduct was “not a single, isolated incident or a brief lapse in judgment.” In re *390 Rooney

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

s, (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); -47 (Minn.2011) (holding that an attorney should not be disbarred for misappropriation of client funds where there were no aggravating factors, the attorney’s clients did not suffer actual harm, and the attorney established several mitigating factors); (holding that an attorney should not be disbarred for misappropriation where several mitigating factors, including “sincere remorse, strong evidence of good character, and lack of prior dis

(“The lack of mitigating circumstances surrounding Garcia’s misappropriation compels disbarment.”); (“Misappropriation of client funds constitutes serious misconduct that generally warrants disbarment.”).

Rooney’s sincere remorse, strong evidence of good character, and lack of prior disciplinary history suggest that he is unlikely to commit such misconduct again.”

In re Bernard,, (“[T]he court has considered a lack of intent to harm the client or to profit from the conduct as mitigating factors ....

(“An attorney’s pro bono legal work, volunteer activities, and good character can also be mitigating factors in misappropriation cases.”).

(“[E]xtraordinary stress in an attorney’s personal life, such as the serious illness of a loved one, is a mitigating factor that can lead to a sanction less than disbarment in a misappropri *605 ation case.”); (imposing 18-month suspension as jointly recommended

Although the misappropriation of client funds is a serious matter typically warranting disbarment, the court notes that the stipulated discipline is in line with the discipline imposed in (indefinite suspension with no right to apply for reinstatement for at least 18 months for misappropriation of $7,750 in client funds), and (18-month suspension followed by three years of supervised probation for misappropriation of $27,700 in client funds where attorney had no prior disciplinary history, exhib

See, -73 (Minn.2006) (18-month suspension); (indefinite suspension, at least two years before reinstatement-eligible).