Cited by

(concluding that multiple types of misconduct resulting in 12 rule violations over the course of three years warrants serious sanction); (concluding that violating 14 rules within several years weighs in favor of more severe discipline).19

We have made clear that “[e]ngaging in frivolous claims or lawsuits violates Rules 3.1, and 8.4(d).” (noting that an attorney’s “groundless claims” violated Rule 3.1 and his attempts to relitigate other baseless claims violated Rule 8.4(d)).

In re Ulanowski (Ulanowski I)

Four factors guide our assessment of what discipline we would impose if we were presented with the facts of Martins’s case in the first instance: “(1) the nature of the misconduct; (2) the cumulative weight of the disciplinary violations; (3) the harm to the public; and (4) the harm to the legal profession.” 10 (Minn. 2011) ().

There are four factors that guide us in what discipline to impose: “(1) the nature of the misconduct; (2) the cumulative weight of the disciplinary violations; (3) the harm to the public; and (4) the harm to the legal profession.” ().

See, 804 (Minn. 2011) (suspending a lawyer for one year as a result of misconduct including disobeying court rules and filing frivolous motions in his own divorce proceeding); (order) upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists.”).

(finding that 6 years after admission and 2 years of full-time practice at the time of an attorney’s first act of misconduct was an aggravating factor).

Ludescher’s misconduct included making knowingly false statements, which we have stated “demonstrates a lack of honesty and integrity, and warrants severe discipline.” 608 (Minn. 2012) ( (Ulanowski I)).

But under the unique facts presented here , we believe that waiving this condition will not undermine the purposes of attorney discipline: “to protect the public, protect the judicial system, and deter future misconduct by the disciplined attorney and other attorneys.” (noting that our disciplinary decisions are “tailored to the specific facts of each case”).

(finding 6 years after admission to practice law and 2 years of full-time practice at the time of his first act of misconduct was an aggravating factor); (holding that 15 years of practice aggravated the sanction).

See In re Sea , 37 (Minn. 2019) (lengthy experience ); Greenman, d at 378 (lack of remorse ); In re Tigue , (prior disciplinary history); (misrepresentations during disciplinary proceedings); In re Ulanowski , (frivolous conduct during disciplinary proceedings).

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

See, e.g. , In re Ulanowski , ( noting that the referee speci fically listed 10 misrepresentations that aggravated the sanction); In re Kennedy , (describing the attorney’s false statements).

(holding that a referee is in the best position to assess credibility); (stating that we find it “particularly appropriate to defer to the referee” when the referee’s findings rest on disputed testimony and witness credibility).

A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when, upon review, we are “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” In re Ulanowski , (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when, upon 5 review, we are “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

In re Ulanowski , , 801 (Minn. 2011) ("We review challenges to the facts and the application of the rules to the facts for clear error.").

of frivolous and harassing litigation, abuse of the discovery process, and failure to acknowledge wrongdoing); –52 (Minn. 2015) (imposing a 2-year suspension for a pattern of pursuing frivolous litigation on behalf of homeowners, fraudulently joining defendants, refiling cases that had been previously dismissed, and failing to pay sanctions); –800 (Minn. 2011) (imposing a 1- year suspension for misconduct including filing frivolous claims, making misrepresentations to a court, and harassing oppo

See In re Ulanowski , , 797, 804 (Minn. 2011) (suspending an attorney for 1 year for failure to communicate a plea offer, among other violations); De Rycke , d at 374, 376 (disbarring attorney after failure to communicate a plea offer, among other violations); In re Grzybek , , 263, 265 (Minn. 1997) (same).

In re Ulanowski , , 801 (Minn. 2011).

ANALYSIS I. When, as in this case, “a party orders a transcript of the disciplinary *429 hearing, the referee’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not conclusive.”

(stating that “[s]evere discipline is warranted where a lawyer’s conduct is dishonest and lacks integrity”).

(“Intentional misconduct can aggravate a violation of the rules.”).

d 785, 801 (Minn. 2011) (stating that several different types of misconduct committed over the course of more than 3 years “merit[] the imposition of a serious sanction”).

Although we recognized this aggravating factor in the past, (“Committing multiple acts of misconduct over a long period of time is an aggravating factor.”); (concluding that “repeated and numerous professional violations” was an aggravating factor), we recently clarified that generally we account for the commissi

See Coleman, d at 308 (determining that “[t]he impact of the harm to the public and the legal profession requires consideration of ‘the number of clients harmed [and] the extent of the clients’ injuries’ ” ()); (determining that the failure to follow court rules undermines public confidence in the legal system).