Cited by

hat discipline we would impose if we were presented with the facts of Martins’s case in the first instance: “(1) the nature of the misconduct; (2) the cumulative weight of the disciplinary violations; (3) the harm to the public; and (4) the harm to the legal profession.” 10 (Minn. 2011) ().

In assessing the appropriate sanction in an attorney discipline matter, “we consider four factors: (1) the nature of the misconduct; (2) the cumulative weight of the disciplinary violations; (3) the harm to the public; and (4) the harm to the legal profession.”

There are four factors that guide us in what discipline to impose: “(1) the nature of the misconduct; (2) the cumulative weight of the disciplinary violations; (3) the harm to the public; and (4) the harm to the legal profession.” ().

The Director also compares this case with

Ludescher committed misconduct towards Nelson by telling the county attorney and sheriff that she committed a crime, and we have held that “[i]mproperly threatening criminal prosecution and harassing opposing counsel may also subject an attorney to discipline.” Ulanowski I, d at 800-01 (citing to Nelson, 32 (Minn. 2007) (noting an attorney had been admonished for improperly threatening “criminal prosecution to coerce payment in a civil matter”)).

In determining the appropriate discipline for an atto rney, we consider four factors: “(1) the nature of the misconduct; (2) the cumulative we ight of the disciplinary violations; (3) the harm to the public; and (4) the harm to the legal profession .” In re Nelson , d 458, 463 (Minn. 2007).

We consider four factors when imposing discipline: “(1) the nature of the misconduct; (2) the cumulative weight of the disciplinary violations; (3) the harm to the public ; and (4) the harm to the legal profession.” In re Nelson

In determining the appropriate discipline, we consider “ ‘(1) the nature of the misconduct; (2) the cumulative weight of the disciplinary violations; (3) the harm to the public; and (4) the harm to the legal profession.’ ” ().

“[N]oncooperation with the disc iplinary process, by itself, may warrant indefinite suspension and, when it exis ts in connection with other misconduct, noncooperation increases the severity of the disciplinary sanction.” I n r e N e l s o n

We alone are the ultimate arbiter of the appropriate discipline for any attorney, but we give the referee’s recommendation “great weight.”

We consider the following when determining the appropriate discipline for an attorney: “(1) the natu re of the misconduct; (2) th e cumulative weight of the 12 disciplinary violations; (3) the harm to the public; and (4) the harm to the legal profession.” In re Nelson , (M inn.

In determining an appropriate disciplinary sanction, we consider “(1) the nature o f the miscond uct; (2) the cumulative we ight of the discipli na r y violat io ns ; (3) the harm to the public; and (4) the harm to the legal profession.”

We consider four factors in determining the appropriate disciplinary sanction: “(1) the nature of the misconduct; (2) the cumulative weight of the disciplinary violations; (3) the harm to the public; and (4) the harm to the legal profession.”

In re Nelson , , 463 (Minn. 2007).

In re Nelson , , 463 (Minn. 2007).

In re Nelson , , 465 (Minn. 2007).

" In re Hansen , , 59 (Minn. 2015) (quoting In re Nelson , , 463 (Minn. 2007) ).

“The purpose of attorney discipline is not to punish the attorney but rather to protect the courts, the public, and the legal profession.”

Noncooperation, by itself, is serious misconduct, and “we typically increase the severity of the disciplinary sanction where noncooperation exists.” () (internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration omitted).

In determining the appropriate sanction in an attorney discipline matter, wé “consider four factors: (1) the nature of the misconduct; (2) the cumulative weight of the disciplinary violations; (3) the harm to the public; and (4) the harm to the legal profession.”

(“[Njoncooperation with the disciplinary process, by itself, may warrant indefinite suspension and, when it exists in connection with other misconduct, noncooperation increases the severity of the disciplinary sanction.”).

We consider four factors in determining the appropriate disciplinary sanction: “(1) the nature of the misconduct; (2) the cumulative weight of the disciplinary violations; (3) the harm to the public; and (4) the harm to the legal profession.” ().- We also consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

In determining the appropriate sanction in an attorney discipline matter, we “consider four factors: (1) the nature of the misconduct; (2) the cumulative weight of the disciplinary violations; (3) the harm to the public; and (4) the harm to the legal profession.”

We consider four factors in determining the appropriate disciplinary sanction: “(1) the nature of the misconduct; (2) the cumulative weight of the disciplinary violations; (3) the harm to the public; and (4) the harm to the legal profession.” 2 In addition, we consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances.