Cited by

See In re Selmer (Selmer IV)

Butler maintains that his failure to file income taxes is an omission, not an “act” under Rule 8.4(b), and also not “conduct” under Rule 8.4(d).5 He suggests that the referee was required to make a specific factual finding regarding how his criminal convictions for tax evasion were “prejudicial to the administration of justice” and that this court’s decision in precludes such a summary conclusion.

See In re Selmer , –38 (Minn. 2008) (crediting Selmer for 11 making efforts to pay off past-due tax balanc es without prompting by the Director and noting that his balances were paid off prior to the disciplinary hearing).

ce of law, with no right to petition for reinstatement for 12 months because he “committed professional misconduct by engaging in a pattern of harassing and frivolous litigation, failing to abide by court orders, and refusing to comply with discovery requests.” 901 (Minn. 2015); -05 (Minn. 1997); In re Disciplinary Action against Selmer

When, as here, a petitioner orders a transcript of a reinstatement hearing, “the panel’s findings ‘are not binding on this court.’ ” (quoting 3 ); see also Rule 14(e), Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility.

The referee explained that his conclusions were based on our analysis in and though the referee recognized that those cases “can certainly be distinguished because neither involved domestic abuse.” The referee also noted that there were other Minnesota cases involving criminal convictions similar to Stoneburner’s in which discipl

“A referee’s recommended discipline carries great weight, but it is our ultimate responsibility to determine what discipline, if any, is appropriate.” ().

(“Disciplinary history and violating the disciplinary rules while on probation are both 13 aggravating factors in attorney discipline cases.”).

“A referee’s recommended discipline carries great weight, but it is our ultimate responsibility to determine what discipline, if any, is appropriate.” ().

While the “referee’s recommendation for discipline carries great weight,” we have “the ultimate responsibility for determining what discipline, if any, is appropriate.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

(suspending an attorney for a minimum of 90 days for failing to timely return original client documents, among olher violations); (stating that public discipline was warranted when attorney failed to pay an outstanding Wisconsin disciplinary judg *801 ment); , 374 (Minn.2006) (disbarring attorney for failing to inform client of plea offer, among other violations); (

See, (failure to timely file); (failure to file); (failure to timely file); In re *824 See, , 602 (Minn.2003) (failure to timely file).

Mose ordered a transcript of the hearing, therefore, the panel’s findings “ ‘are not binding on this court.’ ” (); see also Rule 14(e), RLPR (providing that if respondent orders a transcript, the findings of fact and conclusions of law are not conclusive).