Cited by

do[es] not constitute [a] mitigating circumstance[].”); d 671, 680 (Minn. 2013) (“As our recent precedent is clear that compliance with professional rules and standards is expected .

–79 (Minn. 2013) (concluding that the referee did not clearly err in finding that an attorney’s depression was not a severe psychological disorder, and did not cause him to misappropriate client funds, despite testimony by his psychologist that he suffers from severe depression).

(holding that a referee is in the best position to assess credibility); (stating that we find it “particularly appropriate to defer to the referee” when the referee’s findings rest on disputed testimony and witness credibility).

(stating that we find it “particularly appropriate to defer to the referee” when the referee’s findings rest on disputed testimony and witness credibility).

or in part on credibility, demeanor, and sincerity.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

See In re Jones , In re Munns

See In re Westby , , 370 (Minn. 2002), abrogated on other grounds by In re Jones , , 680 n.9 (Minn. 2013).

The referee’s findings are clearly erroneous if they are “without evidentiary support in the record.”

false statements to clients, fabricated a document, neglected and abandoned numerous clients, failed to abide by court rules, filed a frivolous motion, failed to place client funds in trust, failed to return unearned fees, used improper fee agreements, failed to cooperate with the investigation of several disciplinary complaints, and was suspended by the North Dakota Supreme Court); -74 (Minn. 2013) (disbarring an attorney who misappropriated between $51,142 and $73,000 from clients, failed to k

We have repeatedly held that restitution “must not be prompted by fear of getting caught.” see also Fairbaim, d at 746 (determining that full restitution was a mitigating factor when it occurred before an attorney was notified of an investigation by the Director).

We bear “final responsibility” for imposing discipline on Minnesota attorneys, and we serve as “the sole arbiter of the discipline to be imposed,”

When one party orders a transcript, we “review a referee’s findings and conclusions under the clearly erroneous standard and will reverse only when 2 the findings and conclusions are without evidentiary support in the record.”

See Lundeen, d at 605-06; (stating that an attorney’s failure to comply with deadlines and failure to respond to court orders violated both Rule 3.4(c) and Rule 8.4(d)), abrogated on other grounds by n.9 (Minn. 2013).

(stating that a factual finding is clearly erroneous if it does not find support in the record).