Cited by

d 195, 208 (Minn. 2012).

(citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Oberhauser, d at 160 (“[T]he cumulative weight and severity of multiple disciplinary rule violations may compel severe discipline even when a single act standing alone would not have warranted such discipline.”).

Relying on and d 195, 205 (Minn. 2012), Igbanugo contends that the referee had to independently consider these matters because they concern clients and contracts that are also at issue in his case.

(“We defer to a referee’s findings on such matters as ‘credibility, demeanor, and sincerity.’ ” ()).

An atto rney receives due process in a disciplinary proceeding if the charges against the attorney are “sufficiently clear and specific” and the attorney was “afforded an opportunity to anticipate, prepare and present a defense.” (c itation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

B. We now turn to the cumulative weight of Powell’s miscond uc t. When assessing the cumulative weight of violat io ns, we distinguish a “brief lapse in judgment” or “ a si ngle, isolated incident” of misconduct from “multiple instances [] occurri ng over a substantial amount of time.” In re Murrin , (citatio n omit t e d ) (internal quotations omitted).

We give great weight to the sanction recommended by the referee , but “we alone make the final determination as to the appropriate discipline.”

" In re Michael , , 766 (Minn. 2013) (quoting In re Murrin , , 208 (Minn. 2012) ).

In re Murrin , , 206 (Minn. 2012).

See In re Murrin , , 205 (Minn. 2012).

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) ().

“A referee’s findings are clearly erroneous only if we are ‘left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.’ ” ().

We defer to a referee’s findings on such matters as “credibility, demeanor, and sincerity.” (quotation omitted).

See, -61 (Minn. 2013) (stating that the petition discussed the attorney’s conduct while representing her clients and listed the professional rules allegedly violated); (stating that the petition recounted the attorney’s abuse of the litigation process and listed the professional rules allegedly violated).

This argument is akin to that of the respondent in

(second alteration in original) ().

As to the cumulative weight of the violations, “ ‘we distinguish between a single, isolated incident’ ” and “ ‘multiple instances of mis[conduct] occurring over a substantial 14 amount of time.’ ” (alteration in original) ().

In addition, Nett’s “failure to follow court rules undermines public confidence in the legal system.”

We “distinguish between a ‘brief lapse in judgment’ or ‘a single, isolated incident’ and ‘multiple instances of misfconduct] occurring over a substantial amount of time,’ because the latter warrants more severe discipline.” (alterations in original) (d at 743 ).

If a transcript is ordered, we “give great deference to the referee’s findings and conclusions and will uphold them if they have evidentiary support in the record and are not clearly erroneous.” (“A referee’s findings are clearly erroneous only if we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

We consider four factors to determine the appropriate sanction for professional 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.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).