Cited by

In re Ulanowski (Ulanowski II), (disciplining the attorney for failing to refund unearned money to clients, to communicate with clients, to satisfy a law-related judgment, and to cooperate with the Director’s disciplinary investigation).

e legal profession.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)); (stating that a lawyer’s failure to communicate a settlement offer to a client “reflect[s] adversely on the bar, and [is] destructive of public confidence in the legal profession”); In re Ulanowski (Ulanowski II), 15 (stating that the failure to return unearned fees harms the legal profession because “misuse of funds ‘entrusted to an attorney as a fiduciary for his clients is a breach of trust that reflects poorly on th

“[W]e distinguish ‘a brief lapse in judgment or a single, isolated incident’ of misconduct from multiple instances of misconduct ‘occurring over a substantial amount of time.’ ” ().

As a result, Bradley’s misconduct was neither “a brief lapse in judgment” nor a “single, isolated incident.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Lee misappropriated funds from at least three clients and violated several rules of professional conduct over the course of more than a year, so his misconduct was neither a “brief lapse in judgment” nor a “single, isolated incident.” (concluding that misconduct spanning “more than a year” was not a “brief lapse in judgment”).

was subject to a conservatorship and when “an attorney exhibits callous disregard for the physical and financial well-being of vulnerable, dependent persons, that attorney has a heavy burden to persuade the court [of their] fitness to continue the practice of law.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Ulanowski, d 697, 704 (Minn. 2013) (Ulanowski II).

And “[f]ailure to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation also harm[s] the legal profession by undermining the integrity of the attorney disciplinary system.” see also In re Brooks , (noting our concern with an attorney’s failure “to respond to the Director’s requests for more than one year” and that “failure to cooperate with the disciplinary process hurts .

D. After considering the factors discussed, we “consider and weigh any aggravatin g or mitigating factors to deter mine the appropriate sanction.” In re Ulanowski , d 697, 703 (Minn. 2013).

See In re Ulanowski , , 704 (Minn. 2013) *584 (stating that the admitted petition contained facts that established aggravating factors).

In re Ulanowski , , 703 (Minn. 2013) ; see also In re Jaeger , , 711 (Minn. 2013) ; Fairbairn , d at 742 .

(concluding that misconduct spanning “more than a year” was not a “brief lapse in judgment”).

Although we have said that prior disciplinary history may be an aggravating factor, an attorney’s lack of disciplinary history is not a mitigating factor

harmed the legal profession by undermining the integrity of the attorney discipline system.”

-04 (Minn. 2013) (explaining that the attorney must allege and prove mitigating factors).

Failure to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation also “harm[s] the legal profession by undermining the integrity of the attorney disciplinary system.”

Failure to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation also “harm[s] the legal profession by undermining the integrity of the attorney disciplinary system.”