Cited by

State v. Tall, 45 N.W 449, 450 (Minn. 1890).

“[T]the attorney-client privilege belongs to the client.” d 328, 340 (Minn. 2009).

Because “[h]onesty and integrity are chief among the virtues the public has a right to expect of lawyers,” it is well established that dishonesty “warrants severe discipline,”

The clear-and-convincing evidentiary standard is demanding, requiring “a high probability that the facts are true.” See In re Houge , see also In re Stoneburner , (“[C]lear and convincing evidence requires more than a preponderance of the evidence, but 7 less than proof beyond a reas onable doubt.”).

(“Severe discipline is warranted where a lawyer’s conduct is dishonest and lacks integrity.”); (“We take dishonesty by lawyers seriously and have repeatedly held that a lack of truthfulness or candor warrants severe discipline.”).

“[M]aking misrepresentations demonstrates a lack of honesty and integrity, and warrants severe discipline.” (“A lawyer’s duty of candor to the court goes to the core of preserving the soundness of the justice system.”).

(determining that a pattern of misconduct and baseless attempts to delay disciplinary proceedings add weight to the cumulative impact of an attorney’s violations).

(“A lawyer’s duty of candor to the court goes to the core of preserving the soundness of the judicial system.”).

Moreover, making appearances or signing documents as an attorney while suspended constitute misrepresentations, see Jorissen, d at 826 , and “[sjevere discipline is warranted where a lawyer’s conduct is dishonest and lacks integrity,”

Although generally, making false statements is serious misconduct warranting severe discipline, we have not generally imposed more severe discipline on lawyers who sign a client’s name to a court document with the client’s consent.

We have stated that “[sjevere discipline is warranted where a lawyer’s conduct is dishonest and lacks integrity.” (suspending an attorney for minimum of two years when the attorney assisted a client in fraudulent conduct, knowingly made false statements to court, knowingly offered false evidence, failed to supervise an assistant, and ratified an assistant’s unethical conduct)

(noting that the clear and convincing evidence requires “more than a preponderance of the evidence, but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt”).

(noting that the clear and convincing evidence requires “more than a preponderance of the evidence, but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt”).

(noting that clear and convincing evidence is established by “more than a preponderance of the evidence, but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt”).