Cited by

We give “great weight” to a referee’s discipline recommendation but “retain ultimate responsibility for determining appropriate discipline.” d 58, 66, 68 (Minn. 2012).

12 Montez, 68 (Minn. 2012).

6 “We will, however, review the referee’s interpretation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, and other conclusions of law that do not rely on the referee’s factual findings, de novo, whether or not a transcript is part of our record on review.”

2022) () (“Even when no transcript is ordered, we can still review purely legal issues.”).

We “review de novo the referee’s interpretation of the Rules of Professional Conduct and other conclusions of law that do not rely on the referee’s factual findings.” ().

provides that “when a lawyer knows or reasonably should know that [an] unrepresented person misunderstands the lawyer’s role in the matter, the lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to correct the misunderstanding.” But “an attorney’s violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct does not give rise to a private cause of action against an attorney.” -67 (Minn. 2012).

Although we give great weight to the referee’s recommendation for discipline, we retain the “ultimate responsibility for determining appropriate discipline.”

But “we retain ultimate responsibility for determining 17 [the] appropriate discipline.”

When assessing what discipline to impose, we give deference to the referee’s recommendation, but we have “the ultimate responsibility for sanctioning an attorney.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Although we give “great weight” to the referee’s recommendation, In re Butler , (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted) , we retain the “ultimate responsibility for determining appropriate discipline,”

But we retain the “ultimate responsibility for determining appropriate discipline,”

Although “[w]e give great weight to the recommendations of the Panel,” In re Panel File No. 39302, we have the “ultimate responsibility for determining appropriate discipline” for an attorney who violates the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct

But “we retain ultimate responsibility for determining [the] appropriate discipline.”

When no transcript has been ordered, we view “a referee’s factual findings as conclusive” because reviewing factual findings is impossible “without a transcript.”

“We are the ‘sole arbiter’ of the discipline to be imposed for professional misconduct by Minnesota lawyers,” In re Albrecht , and retain “ultimate responsibility for determining appropriate discipline,” d 58, 66 (Minn. 2012).

ANALYSIS Because neither party ordered a transcript of the di sciplinary hearing, we “ accept [the] referee’s factual findings as conclusive” and “similarly accept as conclusive the conclusions that the referee draws from the facts, such as whether the attorney’s con duct violated the Rules of Professional Conduct.” In re Montez , see Rule 14(e), Rules on Lawyers Professio nal Responsib ility (RLPR).3 We review de novo “the referee’s interpretation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, an d othe

See *336 In re Montez , , 68 (Minn. 2012).

Noncooperation, by itself, is serious misconduct, and “we typically increase the severity of the disciplinary sanction where noncooperation exists.” () (internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration omitted).

was no evidence they intended to deceive their clients or that their trust account violations harmed any clients.”); (stating that “Misrepresentation is also serious misconduct” and that “ ‘making misrepresentations demonstrates a lack of honesty and integrity, and warrants severe discipline’ ” (quoting Lundeen, d at 608 )); (“Failure to maintain and properly use a trust account is a serious violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct....”).

10 responsibility for determining appropriate discipline.”

Rule 14(e), RLPR; -66 (Minn. 2012).

is that an attorney’s violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct does not give rise to a private cause of action against an attorney.” -67 (Minn. 2012).

“Misuse of a client’s funds ‘is a breach of trust that reflects poorly on the entire legal profession and erodes the public’s confidence in lawyers.’ ” ().