Cited by

“In connection with other misconduct, noncooperation increases the severity of the disciplinary sanction.”

See, d 278, 284 (Minn. 2024); d 604, 609 (Minn. 2024); d 370, 374 (Minn. 2006).

In re De Rycke , , 375 (Minn. 2006).

See In re De Rycke , , 374 (Minn. 2006) (concluding that a clear violation of Minn. R. Prof.

and that more ‘extreme’ cases involving client neglect and failure to communicate with clients may merit disbarment” ( )).

We impose discipline for professional misconduct “not to punish the attorney but rather to protect the public, to protect the judicial system, and to deter future misconduct by the disciplined attorney as well as by other attorneys.”

We also consider trust account violations, including “[t]he failure to maintain proper books and records,” and the failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities to be serious disciplinary matters

(stating that noncooperation constitutes independent grounds for serious discipline).

We have repeatedly stated that “[fjailure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities is a serious violation that constitutes separate grounds for discipline” and that “[i]n connection with other misconduct, noncooperation increases the severity of the disciplinary sanction.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

(finding a clear violation of Rules 1.3 and 1.4, MRPC, when attorney did not inform client of a plea offer); (holding that the attorney’s failure to inform his client of a settlement offer from opposing counsel “clearly violated” Rule 1.4, MRPC).

Nature of the Misconduct We have said that misappropriation of client funds alone “ ‘is particularly serious misconduct and usually warrants disbarment absent clear and convincing evidence of substantial mitigating factors.’” Garcia, d at 443 (); *327

The purpose of discipline for professional misconduct is not to punish the attorney, but rather to protect the public, to protect the judicial system, *162 and to deter future misconduct by the disciplined attorney as well as by other attorney’s.

See, (imposing indefinite suspension, with no right to apply for reinstatement for two years, based in part on failure to cooperate with the Director); (citing failure to cooperate with the Director as a factor increasing the severity of the sanction to be imposed for other professional misconduct).

“The purposes of disciplinary sanctions for professional misconduct are to protect the public, to protect the judicial system, and to deter future misconduct by the disciplined attorney as well as by other attorneys.”

“The purposes of disciplinary sanctions for professional misconduct are to protect the public, to protect the judicial system, and to deter future misconduct by the disciplined attorney as well as by other attorneys.” 6 (internal quotation omitted).

“After a disciplinary proceeding, this court expects a renewed commitment to comprehensive ethical and professional behavior, and where leniency has been shown once, this court is reluctant to do so again.” ().

suspension by itself,” Brooks, d at 88 , and that more “extreme” cases involving client neglect and failure to communicate with clients may merit disbarment