Cited by

(stating that “[w]e measure harm to the public based on the quantity (the number of clients harmed) and the quality (the extent of the clients’ injuries)”).

We also measure harm to the public based on “the number of clients harmed [and] the extent of the clients’ injuries.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

We also consider the harm that Bradley’s misconduct caused to the public, measured, in part, based on “the number of clients harmed [and] the extent of the clients’ injuries.” (alteration in original) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

(emphasis added) (quotations and citations omitted).

Shamrock Dev., rev’d on other grounds, see also In re Disciplinary Action 5 Against Coleman, (indicating that “improper service” causes a “lack of personal jurisdiction”).

d 296, 308 (Minn. 2011).

When assessing harm from disciplinary violations, we consider “ ‘the number of clients harmed [and] the extent of the clients’ injuries.’ ” 308 (Minn. 2011) ().

In analyzing harm, the court considers “the number of clie nts harmed [and] the extent of the clients’ injuries.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“Attorneys with a disciplinary history are ‘expected to show a renewed commitment to ethical behavior.’ ” ().

We give “great deference to the referee’s finding s of fact” and will not reverse the referee’s findings when the findings “h ave evidentiary support in th e record and are not clearly erroneous.” In re Coleman , (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

But, when assessing harm, we also consider “ ‘the number of clients harmed [and] the extent of the clients’ injuries.’ ” (alteration in original) ().

(stating that factual findings will not be reversed “if they have evidentiary support in the record and are not clearly erroneous” (quotation omitted)).

(quoting In re Coleman , , 308 (Minn. 2011) ).

P. 52.01; (stating that factual findings will not be reversed “if they have evidentiary support in the record and are not clearly erroneous” and that findings of fact are clearly erroneous when an appellate court is “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made” (quotations omitt

In re Coleman , , 308 (Minn. 2011).

In evaluating the harm to the public, we consider “the number of clients harmed [and] the extent of the clients’ injuries.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original).

See In re Coleman , (“We review a referee’s decision to quash a subpoena and to allow a witness’s deposition into evidence for an abuse of discretion.”); State v. Underdahl , (“A district court judge has wide discretion to issue discovery orders, and normally an order will not be ove

In evaluating harm to the public, we consider “ ‘the number of clients harmed [and] the extent of the clients’ injuries.’ ” ().