Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re Disciplinary Action Against Nelson, 733 N.W.2d 458.

118 citing documents.

In Re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Paul Roland RAMBOW, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0169389 874 N.W.2d 773 Minn. 2016
Noncooperation with the disciplinary process, when it exists in connection with other misconduct, “increases the severity of the disciplinary sanction.”
In Re PETITION FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Frank Arend SCHULTE, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 244934 869 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2015
In Re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Dale Allen HANSEN, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 217840 868 N.W.2d 55 Minn. 2015
In Re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Dale Allen HANSEN, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 217840 868 N.W.2d 55 Minn. 2015
In imposing discipline, we are guided by 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.”
In Re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Scott SELMER, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 156024 866 N.W.2d 893 Minn. 2015
In Re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Scott SELMER, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 156024 866 N.W.2d 893 Minn. 2015
In Re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Duane A. KENNEDY, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 55128 864 N.W.2d 342 Minn. 2015
In Re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Duane A. KENNEDY, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 55128 864 N.W.2d 342 Minn. 2015
d 458, 461 (Minn. 2007).
In Re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST William L. FRENCH, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 131945 864 N.W.2d 183 Minn. 2015
In Re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST William L. FRENCH, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 131945 864 N.W.2d 183 Minn. 2015
In imposing discipline, we are guided by 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.”
In Re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Mark Alan GREENMAN, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 228990 860 N.W.2d 368 Minn. 2015
In Re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Mark Alan GREENMAN, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 228990 860 N.W.2d 368 Minn. 2015
The four factors that guide this court’s imposition of discipline are: “(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 Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Linda A. BROST, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 182692 850 N.W.2d 699 Minn. 2014
In Re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Linda A. BROST, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 182692 850 N.W.2d 699 Minn. 2014
The “noncooperation 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.”
In re Disciplinary Action Against Harrigan 841 N.W.2d 624 Minn. 2014
In re Disciplinary Action Against Harrigan 841 N.W.2d 624 Minn. 2014
We have stated that “noncooperation 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.”
In re Disciplinary Action Against Taplin 837 N.W.2d 306 Minn. 2013
In re Disciplinary Action Against Taplin 837 N.W.2d 306 Minn. 2013
“The purpose of attorney discipline is not to punish the attorney but rather to protect the courts, the public, and the legal profession.”
In re Disciplinary Action Against Ulanowski 834 N.W.2d 697 Minn. 2013
In re Disciplinary Action Against Ulanowski 834 N.W.2d 697 Minn. 2013
When determining the appropriate sanction for misconduct, 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.”
In re Disciplinary Action Against Pitera 827 N.W.2d 207 Minn. 2013
In re Disciplinary Action Against Pitera 827 N.W.2d 207 Minn. 2013
We have repeatedly stated that “noncooperation 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.”
In re Disciplinary Action Against Murrin 821 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2012
In re Disciplinary Action Against Murrin 821 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2012
When determining the appropriate discipline for attorney misconduct, we consider the following 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.”
In re Disciplinary Action Against Nathanson 812 N.W.2d 70 Minn. 2012
In re Disciplinary Action Against Nathanson 812 N.W.2d 70 Minn. 2012
To determine the appropriate discipline, we consider four factors: “(1) the nature of the misconduct; (2) the cumulative weight of the disciplinary violation; (3) the harm to the public; and (4) the harm to the legal profession.” Rebeau, d at 173 ().
In re Disciplinary Action Against Montez 812 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 2012
In re Disciplinary Action Against Montez 812 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 2012
In re Disciplinary Action Against Wolff 810 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 2012
In re Disciplinary Action Against Wolff 810 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 2012
In Minnesota, we consider four factors when determining 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.” ().
In re Disciplinary Action Against Paul 809 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 2012
In re Disciplinary Action Against Paul 809 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 2012
In re Disciplinary Action Against Ulanowski 800 N.W.2d 785 Minn. 2011
In re Disciplinary Action Against Ulanowski 800 N.W.2d 785 Minn. 2011
(listing past disciplinary history and including threats of criminal prosecution in a civil matter)
In re Disciplinary Action Against Coleman 793 N.W.2d 296 Minn. 2011
In re Disciplinary Action Against Coleman 793 N.W.2d 296 Minn. 2011
In imposing discipline, 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.”
In re Disciplinary Action Against Garcia 792 N.W.2d 434 Minn. 2010
In re Disciplinary Action Against Garcia 792 N.W.2d 434 Minn. 2010
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Rebeau 787 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 2010
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Rebeau 787 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 2010
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Aitken 787 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 2010
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Aitken 787 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 2010
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Waite 782 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 2010
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Waite 782 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 2010
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Lyons 780 N.W.2d 629 Minn. 2010
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Lyons 780 N.W.2d 629 Minn. 2010
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Albrecht 779 N.W.2d 530 Minn. 2010
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Albrecht 779 N.W.2d 530 Minn. 2010
(discussing Nelson’s numerous disciplines in deciding the cumulative weight of his violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct).
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Karlsen 778 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 2010
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Karlsen 778 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 2010