Cited by

to determine if sanctions should be imposed.”

to determine if sanctions should be imposed.”

Misappropriation alone “usually warrants disbarment absent clear and convincing evidence of substantial mitigating factors.” (citation omitted).

See, (“Misappropriation of client funds alone ‘is particularly serious misconduct and usua lly warrants disbarment absent clear and convincing evidence of substan tial mitigating factors.’ ” (quoting In re Rhodes, 10 )).

" In re Garcia , , 441 (Minn. 2010) (quoting In re Gherity , , 478 (Minn. 2004) ).

See In re Severson , , 670 (Minn. 2015) (lack of remorse); In re Garcia , , 443-44 (Minn. 2010) (selfish motive); In re Stroble , , 871 (Minn. 1992) (vulnerability of victim).

*582 In re Garcia , , 443 (Minn. 2010) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Misappropriation alone “usually warrants disbarment absent clear and convincing evidence of substantial mitigating factors.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

(holding that committing misconduct while on probation aggravates the misconduct).

Misappropriation of client funds is, in itself, “particularly serious misconduct” that “usually warrants disbarment absent clear and convincing evidence of substantial mitigating factors.” 780 (Minn. 2016) (disbarring an attorney who misappropriated more than $1,000 of client funds).

Misappropriation alone is ‘“particularly serious misconduct and usually warrants disbarment absent clear and convincing evidence of substantial mitigating factors.’ ” ().

“Misappropriation of client funds alone is ‘particularly serious misconduct and usually warrants disbarment absent clear and convincing evidence of substantial mitigating factors.’” 2 ().

Matson’s misappropriation of C.B.’s $550 filing fee, by itself, is “ ‘particularly serious misconduct and usually warrants disbarment absent clear and convincing evidence of substantial mitigating factors.’ ” ( (internal quotation marks omitted); (disbarring an attorney who misappropriated client funds by performing no work on a matter and not returning unearned funds to the client, among other vi

to determine if sanctions should be imposed.” see also In re Rerat, 224 Minn. 124, 128

-44 (Minn. 2010) (finding that an attorney demonstrated selfish or dishonest motives when he misappropriated funds to pay country club fees).

-44 (Minn.2010) (recognizing that an attorney demonstrated selfish or dishonest motives when he misappropriated funds to pay country club fees).

“Misappropriation of client funds alone ‘is particularly serious misconduct and usually warrants disbarment absent clear and convincing evidence of substantial mitigating factors.’ ” ().

We have stated that “ ‘[t]he charges to which an attorney must answer need to be sufficiently clear and specific and the attorney must be afforded an opportunity to anticipate, prepare and present a defense.’” (d at 478 )

We consider the misappropriation of client funds to be “particularly serious misconduct [that] usually warrants disbarment absent clear and convincing evidence of substantial mitigating factors.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The misappropriation of client funds alone “is particularly serious misconduct and usually warrants disbarment absent clear and convincing evidence of substantial mitigating factors.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

See ("Misappropriation of client funds alone 'is particularly serious misconduct and usually warrants disbarment absent clear and convincing evidence of substantial mitigating factors."" ()).

(“The lack of mitigating circumstances surrounding Garcia’s misappropriation compels disbarment.”); (“Misappropriation of client funds constitutes serious misconduct that generally warrants disbarment.”).

*324 We have said that “ ‘the attorney must be afforded an opportunity to anticipate, prepare and present a defense.’ ” ().