Cited by

at 329 (–89 (Minn. 2013)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Finally, we consider “other disciplinary rule violations” more severely when paired with “serious client neglect and incompetence.”

If we reinstated attorneys who lack the intellectual competence to practice law, we would seriously jeopardize our duty to “protect the public from harm and deter future misconduct.” (explaining that a pattern of incompetence and client neglect is “serious misconduct” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

We have held that such 28 misconduct has “potentially grave consequences” and can put clients at “risk for deportation or removal.” In re Fru , –89 (Minn. 2013).

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

We have observed that a “continuing pattern of client neglect is serious misconduct often warranting indefinite suspension by itself.”

(stating that “[w]e are particularly troubled by the fact that Fru’s misconduct threatened the immigration status of many of his clients” and that those clients were “vulnerable and depended on him to guide them through the complex—and often punitive— maze of federal immigration law” (citation omi

And his repeated acts of 18 neglect and incompetence “harmed the legal profession by undermining the public’s trust in the competence, diligence, and integrity of lawyers.” (concluding that a lawyer’s pattern of incompetence and neglect harmed the legal profession).

As support for h is request for postconviction relief, Fualefeh asserted that he was denied his Six th Amendment right to counsel because his trial attorney, Fru, was on restricted status at the time of his trial and was subsequently suspended from the practice of law.1 The circumstances leading to Fru’s suspension are described in

Instead, we have repeatedly said that when neither party orders a transcript, the referee’s findings of fact and conclusions drawn from those facts are “conclusive.” See , Montez, d at 66; d 446, 449 (Minn. 2005).

Rule 14(e), Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR); (Mi nn.

See In re Fru , , 388-90 (Minn. 2013) ; see also In re Lindley , , 698 (Minn. 1995).

(indicating that a lack of harm 'to clients goes to the harm caused to the public and is not a mitigating factor); , 390 n.7 (Minn. 2013) (stating that “we generally take the fact that an attorney has committed multiple acts of misconduct into account when considering the cumulative weight of an attorney’s disciplinary violations” rather than, as a separate aggravating factor).

390 n.7 (Minn. 2013) (refusing to -consider the attorney’s multiple acts of misconduct over an extended period of time as an aggravating factor because that factor “overlap[ped] with our consideration of the cumulative weight of [the attorney’s] disciplinary violations”).

390 n.7 (Minn. 2013) (refusing to consider the attorney’s multiple acts of misconduct over an extended period of time as an aggravating factor because that factor “overlaptped] with our consideration of the cumulative weight of [the attorney’s] disciplinary violations”).

390 n.7 (Minn. 2013) (refusing to consider the attorney’s multiple acts of misconduct over an extended period of time as an aggravating factor because that factor “overlap[ped] with our consideration of the cumulative weight of [the attorney’s] disciplinary violations”).

(listing the intentional nature of attorney’s misconduct as an aggravating factor).

With respect to the cumulative weight of Kennedy’s misconduct, we have differentiated between “a single, isolated incident or a brief lapse in judgment,” and misconduct that “persisted for an extended period of time and spanned multiple matters.”

The four factors that guide this court’s imposition of discipline are: “(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).

(“We have said that ‘[a] continuing pattern of client neglect is serious misconduct often warranting indefinite suspension by itself....’”) (); (“Repeated neglect of client matters, misrepresentations

(characterizing noncooperation with the Director’s investigation as a “serious violation”).