Cited by

368, 377 (Minn. 2016) ().

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

See, (ascribing to Thiele the proposition that “[i]n cases involving substitute service at a defendant’s residence, the rules governing service are liberally construed when the intended recipient had actual notice of the lawsuit”); Tullis, d at 311 (citing Thiele for the proposition that “actual

Next, we consider the harm to the public and the legal profession, including “the number of clients harmed [and] the extent of the clients’ injuries.” (quoting Randall, d at 683).

Instead, we “give ‘great deference’ to the referee’s findings and will uphold [them] if they have evidentiary support in the record and are not clearly erroneous.” Voss, d at 874 ().

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

(explaining that an attorney’s prior disciplinary history is an aggravating factor “because, after being 8 disciplined, an attorney is expected to show a renewed commitment to ethical behavior” (citation omitted)).

3 great deference to the referee’s findings of fact and will not reverse those findings if they have evidentiary support in the record and are not clearly erroneous.” (citation omitted).

Next, assessing the harm to the public and the legal profession “requires consideration of ‘the number of clients harmed [and] the extent of the clients’ injuries.’ ” (alteration in original) ().

We also assess the harm to the public and the legal profession, “requir[ing] consideration of the number of clients harmed [and] the extent of the clients’ injuries.” (alternation in original) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

However, we give “great deference to the referee’s findings of fact and will not reverse those findings ‘if they have evidentiary support in the record and are not clearly erroneous.’ ” ().

Nevertheless, “we give great deference to the referee’s findings of fact and will not reverse those findings ‘if they have evidentiary support in the record and are not clearly erroneous.’ ” ().

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

This includes consideration of “the number of clients harmed [and] the extent of the clients’ injuries.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

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

This includes 9 consideration of “the number of clients harmed and the extent of the clients’ injuries.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

This includes consideration of “the number of clients harmed and the extent of the clients’ injuries.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Evaluating the harm to the public and the profession “requires consideration of the number of clients harmed [and] the extent of the clients’ injuries.” (alteration in original) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

applies] the underlying factual determinations unless they are clearly erroneous.” (citing Shamrock Dev., (“Whether service of process was effective, and personal jurisdiction therefore exists, is a question of law that we review de novo.”)).

In assessing the harm to the public and the legal profession, we consider “the number of clients harmed and the extent of the clients’ injuries.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

In analyzing these factors, we consider “ ‘the number of clients harmed [and] the extent of the clients’ injuries.’ ” (alteration in original) ().