Cited by

Nielson argues that the client testimony was not credible, but we defer to the referee’s findings when the findings “rest on disputed testimony or in part on credibility, demeanor, and sincerity.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Instead, Quinn attempted to explain his actions, and he shifted responsibility 15 to others, blaming R.F., for example, for how long it took to refund the filing fee.14 (recognizing lack of remorse and the shifting of responsibility as an aggrava ting factor).

tantial practice in the law is also an aggravating factor because it is assumed that an experienced attorney has had an opportunity to become familiar with the law," citing Lyons and Moeller ); *44 In re Ulanowski , , 802 (Minn. 2011) (accepting without analysis why it mattered in the case that "substantial practice in the law" was an aggravating factor, citing Fett ); In re Voss , , 878 (Minn. 2013) (accepting without analysis a referee's conclusion that a lawyer's 35 years of experience was an

See In re Voss , , 874 (Minn. 2013) (stating that "misappropriation may occur when a lawyer perform[s] no work on [client] matters and never return[s] the funds to the clients."

See In re Voss , , 878 (Minn. 2013).

In re Voss , , 874 (Minn. 2013).

We give “significant weight” to the referee’s recommendation for discipline, but “we are the ‘sole arbiter of the discipline to be imposed.’ ” ().

11 In assessing the harm to the public caused by misconduct, we consider “the number of [persons] harmed and the extent of the [persons’] injuries.”

“The Director bears the burden of proving professional misconduct by clear and convincing evidence.”

-75 (Minn. 2013) (stating that we defer to the referee’s findings “when they are based on a credibility determination” and that a referee is free to reject the testimony of an attorney as “not credible”).

-75 (Minn. 2013) (stating that the court defers to the referee’s findings when they “are based on a credibility determination” and that a referee is free to reject the testimony of an attorney as “not credible”); (“The referee was free to reject Waite’s test

“Misappropriation of client funds alone ‘is particularly serious misconduct and usually warrants disbarment absent clear and convincing evidence of substantial mitigating factors.’ ” ().

Turning to whether misappropriation occurred, we recently applied two complementary definitions of misappropriation in

We held in In re Lundeen, which also involved an attorney who failed to cooperate with the Director’s investigation, that we may conclude that the attorney has misappropriated client funds when the attorney “perform[s] no work on [a client’s file] and never return[s] the funds to the clients.” (applying Lundeen).