Cited by

See Rule 14(e), Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR); d 785, 793 (Minn. 2011).

See Rule 4.4(a), MRPC; 794-95 (Minn. 2011) (holding it was not clear error to find that making repeated insults violated Rule 4.4(a)).

Rule 14(e), Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR)

(selfish or dishonest motive as an aggravating factor); (pattern of misconduct and multiple offenses as an aggravating factor); Rebeau, d at 176 (disciplinary history and lack of remorse as aggravating (Footnote continued on next page.)

More broadly, an attorney’s “[f]ail[ure] to follow court rules harms public confidence in the legal system,” d 785, 801 (Minn. 2011), as do a lawyer’s false and misleading statements to a court.

Because the Director ordered a transcript, “the referee’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not conclusive.”

(“Frivolous claims are a waste of the court’s resources.”).

Conduct 3.2 focuses on “the interests of the client,” we applied this rule to an attorney representing himself in a dissolution proceeding in

Failing to cooperate with the investigation “warrants indefinite suspension on its own” as well as “increases the sanction imposed when accompanied by other misconduct.” d at 464 (stating that noncooperation with the disciplinary process increases the severity of the disciplinary sanction).

While “we place great weight on the referee’s recommended discipline, we retain ultimate responsibility for determining the appropriate sanction.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

We have identified four factors to assess the appropriate discipline for a lawyer’s misconduct: “(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.” (d at 463 )

Such conduct undermines respect for the judicial system, especially when the conduct comes from an attorney, who is “ ‘responsible for the orderly administration of justice in this *711 state.’ ” Jorissen, d at 826 (quoting In re Daly, 284 Minn. 567, 571 , ); (“Failing to follow court rules harms public confidence in the legal system.”).

The referee found several aggravating factors, including: (1) Voss’s 35 years of experience, (2) Voss’s history of three private admonitions, see Coleman, d at 308-09 ; (3) Voss’s pattern of professional misconduct that persisted over an extended period of time and spanned multiple matters, see Ulanowski, d at 802 ; (4) Voss’s failure to cooperate after the disciplinary pro

In the past, we have said that "[c]omitting multiple acts of misconduct over a long period of time is an aggravating factor.”

In Minnesota, we consider four factors when determining 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.” ().