Cited by

(explaining that even if the misconduct does not “jeopardize a client’s legal position, a lawyer’s procrastination, neglect, and 15 failure to communicate with a client ‘are intensely frustrating to the client’ ” (-42 (Minn. 2010)).

713 (Minn.1998) (order); In re Albrecht (Albrecht I), (order), twice suspended him for a defined period, Albrecht IV, d at 797 (90 days); In re Albrecht (Albrecht II), (order) (45 days), once publicly reprimanded him, Albrecht I, d at 705 , and, most recently, suspended him indefinitely, In re Albrecht (Albrecht V), (minimum of 2 years).

8 Regarding the first factor, “we have distinguished between ‘serious’ and ‘severe’ conditions,” finding that “only severe conditions are a mitigating factor in an attorney disciplinary proceeding.” (holding that Albrecht’s “disorder was serious, but not severe,” based on his therapist’s testimony that his disorder was “ ‘moderate’ in severity”); (holding that because Hanvik’s psychologist characterized his depression as serious, Hanvik did n

“The purpose of disciplinary sanctions is not to punish the attorney, but rather ‘to protect the public, to protect the judicial system, and to deter future misconduct by the disciplined attorney as well as by other attorneys.’ ” ().

A referee’s findings are clearly erroneous when they leave us “with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

-38 (Minn.2010) (“But the fact that the referee may treat an attorney’s ...

-42 (Minn.2010) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Ulanowski, d at 801 (stating that failure to follow court rules undermines public confidence in the legal system).

(citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

(reviewing the referee’s findings for clear error); (reviewing the referee’s absence of specific findings for clear error).

(stating that the attorney’s neglect “caused the needless expenditure of judicial resources and the resources of opposing counsel, which harmed the legal profession”).

(“[Rjegardless of whether an attorney’s misconduct ‘jeopardize^] the client’s position with respect to a claim, a lawyer’s failure to communicate with the client and misrepresentations regarding the status of a pending case are intensely frustrating to the client....”) (quoting Redburn, d at

We consider “both the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances of the particular case in determining the appropriate discipline.”