Cited by

Intentional misappropriation occurs “when an attorney uses client funds for his or her own personal benefit, even when the attorney did not intend to permanently deprive a client of his or her funds.” –37 (Minn. 2018); (“Borrowing from client funds, no matter how temporary or no matter how seemingly safe, is misappropriation and is not to be countenanced.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

“[W]e distinguish ‘a brief lapse in judgment or a single, isolated incident’ of misconduct from multiple instances of misconduct ‘occurring over a substantial amount of time.’ ” ().

As relevant to the cumulative weight of the violations, Baird’s misconduct rises above the level of a “brief lapse in judgment” or “a single, isolated incident.”

d 152, 158 (Minn. 2010).

We have repeatedly held , however, that “an attorney’s lack of prior disciplinary history is not a mitigating factor, but instead constitutes the absence of an aggravating factor.”

at 299 (quoting In re Fairbairn , ).6 In short, when an attorney holds client funds in a business account and spends them for any purpose not intended by the client, and the account balance dips below the amount of the client’s money that should be present in the account, the attorney intentionally misappropriates those funds in v

In determining the cumulative weight of disciplinary violations, we “distinguish between ‘a brief lapse in judgment or a single, isolated incident’ from ‘multiple instances of mis[conduct] occu rring over a substantial amount of time.’ ” (d 734, 743 (Minn. 2011)).

When determining the severity of an attorney’s misconduct, we distinguish between a “brief lapse in judgment” and “multiple instances of mis[conduct] occurring over a substantial amount of time.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

occu rring over a substantial amount of time.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks 20 omitted).

Of course the risks are much higher when more money is involved, but in any event, “[b]orrowing from client funds, no matter how temporary or no matter how seemingly safe, is misappropriation and is not to be countenanced.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

We have held that “[m]isappropriation of any kind, by its very nature, harms the public at large.” –38 (Minn. 2018) (stating that misappropriation of client funds “erode[s] the public’s trust in lawyers and reflects poorly on the profession”).

" In re Panel File No. 41755 , , 232 (Minn. 2018) (quoting In re Fairbairn , , 742 (Minn. 2011) ).

at 802 ("Intentional misconduct can aggravate a violation of the rules."); see also In re Fairbairn , , 747 (Minn. 2011) ("An attorney's selfish ...

In re Fairbairn , , 742 (Minn. 2011) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

In re Fairbairn , , 742 (Minn. 2011) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

In re Fairbairn , , 743 (Minn. 2011) (citation omitted); see Voss , d at 878 .

" 18 In re Fairbairn , , 742-43 (Minn. 2011).

Moreover, regardless of the amount, misappropriation harms the legal profession because it is “a breach of trust that reflects poorly on the entire legal profession and erodes the public’s confidence in lawyers.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“We consider four factors when determining the appropriate' discipline: 1) the nature of the misconduct, 2) the cumulative weight of the violations of the rules of professional conduct, 3) the harm to the-public, and 4) the harm to the legal profession.” () (internal quotation marks omitted).

occurring over a substantial amount of time or involving significant amounts of money.” (citation omitted).

We distinguish between “ ‘a brief lapse in judgment’ or ‘a single, isolated incident’ ” and multiple instances of misconduct “occurring over a substantial amount of time.” ( ).

“Misappropriation of any kind, by its very nature, harms the public at large.”

“In assessing the cumulative weight of the violations, we distinguish a ‘brief lapse in judgment’ or ‘a single, isolated incident’ of misappropriation from multiple instances of misappropriation occurring over a substantial amount of time or involving significant amounts of money.” () (concluding that six separate acts of misappropriation from a client trust account, which totaled $144,000 over 13 months, was “more than a brief lapse in judgment or a single isolated incident”).

Even when an attorney returns money that was misappropriated, which did not occur here, “Misappropriation of any kind, by its very nature, harms the public at large.”

(“ ‘[B]orrowing' from client funds, no matter how temporary or no matter how seemingly ‘safe,’ is misappropriation and is not to be countenanced.” ()).

B. To determine the cumulative weight of an attorney’s violations, we “distinguish between a ‘brief lapse in judgment’ or ‘a single, isolated incident’ and ‘multiple instances of mis[conduct] occurring over a substantial amount of time.’ ” d 195, 208 (Minn. 2012) (alteration in original) ().

We distinguish between “a brief lapse in judgment or a single, isolated incident” and multiple instances of misconduct “occurring over a substantial amount of time.” ; 743 (Minn. 2011).