Cited by

(“[W]e defer to the referee’s findings when the referee’s findings rest on disputed testimony or in part on credibility, demeanor, and sincerity.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)); (holding that a referee may reject testimony).

The referee’s reasoning for rejecting Kennedy’s testimony on the basis of credibility was robust, and we defer to the referee’s findings “when the referee’s findings rest on disputed testimony or in part on credibility, demeanor, and sincerity.” 14 (Minn. 2009) (holding that a referee may reject testimony).

See In re Farley , , 863 (Minn. 2009) (holding that a referee may reject testimony).

() (second alteration in original) (internal quotation marks.

But “mere compliance with the rules of professional conduct is not a mitigating factor in attorney discipline cases.” Albrecht, d at 539 ; (concluding that cooperation with criminal and disciplinary proceedings is required by the rules and is not a factor for mitigation); (same); (same).

Turning to the discipline we have imposed in other cases, we have “typically imposed suspensions or public reprimands for criminal conduct unrelated to the practice of law.”

“We generally view ‘felony convictions as serious misconduct,’ ” (), and we have previously disbarred attorneys for “criminal conduct unrelated to the practice [of] law, including serious drug-related offenses, crimes of violence, and acts involving dishonesty.” -65 (Minn. 2009) (emphasis added); (order) (disbarring an attorney for a fraud conviction unrelated to the practice of law); -79 (Minn. 1979) (disbarring an attorney who was convicted of conspiracy to import marijuana into

In doing so, the Director relies on our decisions *722 in (“[A]n attorney’s lack of disciplinary history is not a mitigating factor but is instead the absence of an aggravating factor”), and (concluding that cooperation with the proceedings is required of every attorney and may not be considered a mitigating factor).

When the misconduct is “unintentional or passive,” such as “failure to cooperate with an investigation,” we have recognized “individual Weyhrich factors as independent mitigating factors.”

(concluding that referee was “free to reject” testimony of good character as insufficient to support mitigation); (concluding that character testimony of trustworthiness before the filing of the petition without more does not mitigate the misconduct alleged

When an attorney commits criminal conduct unrelated to the practice of law, however, “[w]e have typically imposed suspensions or public reprimands.”

(“We conclude that examination of remorse is an important issue and that the referee erred in failing to address it.”).