Cited by

But we have also stated that, where evidence of reputation or “excellent results” comes only from testimony, the “referee is in the best position to assess the relative weight to give to witnesses’ testimony.” n.1 (Minn. 2006).

See, (“Here, as the referee found, the severity of Wentzel’s misconduct is aggravated by the fact that it lasted over two years, involved 30 instances of misappropriation, and caused a trust account shortage of nearly $88,000.”).

See, e.g. , In re Wentzel , , 520-21 (Minn. 2006).

In re Wentzel , , 520-21 (Minn. 2006) (citation omitted) (collecting cases).

–21 (Minn. 2006) (collecting cases).

As the Director has noted, , in determining the cumulative weight of the violations, “we distinguish ‘a brief lapse in judgment’ or ‘a single, isolated incident’ of misappropriation from multiple instances of misappropriation occurring over a substantial amount of time or involving significant amounts of money.” Fairbairn, d at 743 ().

Because misappropriation is such serious misconduct, we “generally disbar attorneys who misappropriate client funds.”

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.” ( ).

“In assessing the cumulative weight of the violations, we distinguish a ‘brief lapse in judgment’ or ‘a single, isolated incident’ of misappropriation from multiple instances of misappropriation occurring over a substantial amount of time or involving significant amounts of money.” () (concluding that six separate acts of misappropriation from a client trust account, which totaled $144,000 over 13 months, was “more than a brief lapse in judgment or a single isolated incident”).

(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).

Because misappropriation is such serious misconduct, we “generally disbar attorneys who misappropriate client funds.”

We also consider misconduct that includes multiple rule violations and persists over time more serious than “single isolated incident[s]” or “brief lapse[s] in judgment.”

(disbarring an attorney who misappropriated nearly $50,000 in client funds); (disbarring an attorney who misappropriated $90,000 from elderly clients).

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).

We consider misappropriation of client funds a particularly serious violation and “generally disbar attorneys who misappropriate client funds” unless there are “ ‘substantial mitigating circumstances.’ ” -21 (Minn.2006) ().

(concluding that 30 separate instances of misappropriation that lasted over 2 years and created a trust account shortage of $88,000 was “not a single isolated incident or a brief lapse in judgment”); Rooney, d at 269 (stating that 17 separate instances of misappropriation over the course of a

We addressed a similar argument in