Cited by

Remorse “can be a mitigating factor in 27 considering the appropriate discipline,” but a “lack of remorse can aggravate an attorney’s misconduct.”

18 her conduct and the effect it had on others.”

d 658, 670 (Minn. 2015) (noting that an attorney’s lack of remorse can be an aggravating factor in disciplinary proceedings).

12 ANALYSIS The aim of attorney discipline “is not to punish the attorney, but rather to protect the public, safeguard the judicial system, and deter future misconduct by the disciplined attorney and other attorneys.” In re Severson (Severson I)

* * * At its core, the purpose of attorney discipline is to “protect the public, safeguard the judicial system, and deter future misconduct by the disciplined attorney and other attorneys.”

13 See Taplin, d at 313 (recognizing failure to cooperate as an aggravating factor); (recognizing lack of remorse as an aggravating factor); Kaszynski , d at 712– 13 (recognizing both vulnerability of clients—particularly includ ing immigration clients who we re dependent on their attorney in legal proceedings—and substantial experience in the practice of law as aggrava

19 d at 467 (disciplinary history); d 342, 350 (Minn. 2015) (probation); (lack of remorse); (experience).

The core goals of attorney discipline are to “protect the public, safeguard the judicial system, and deter future misconduct by the disciplined attorney and other attorneys.”

In determining the cumulative weight of disciplinary violations, we “distinguish between ‘a brief lapse in judgment or a single, isolated incident’ from ‘multiple instances of mis[conduct] occu rring over a substantial amount of time.’ ” (d 734, 743 (Minn. 2011)).

“[W]hether an attorney’s advice could be relied upon to establish an attorney-client relationship is a question of fact.”

We have defined remorse in attorney di sciplinary matters as an expre ssion of “genuine regret and moral anguish for [the attorney’s] conduct and the effect it had on others.”

See In re Severson , (recognizing lack of remorse is an aggravating factor); Kaszynski, d at 712 (recognizing client vulnerability is an aggravating factor); In re Milloy , –46 (Minn. 1997) (recognizin g a prior disciplinary history, the similarity between the current misconduct and the law

When considering the cumulative weight of misconduct, we distinguish “a brief lapse in judgment or a single, isolated incident” from “multiple instances of misconduct occurring ov er a substantial amount of time.” In re Severson

See Grigsby, d at 845; In re Severson

13 over a substantial amount of time.’ ” (alteration in original) ().

In re Severson , , 662-63, 674-75 (Minn. 2015).

See In re Severson , , 670 (Minn. 2015) (lack of remorse); In re Garcia , , 443-44 (Minn. 2010) (selfish motive); In re Stroble , , 871 (Minn. 1992) (vulnerability of victim).

" In re Stoneburner , , 206 (Minn. 2016) (alteration in original) (quoting In re Severson , , 673 (Minn. 2015) ).

There are two uncontested mitigating factors: remorse, (“An attorney’s remorse can be a mitigating factor in considering the appropriate discipline.”), and Bonner’s reputation for honesty and being a good lawyer, 14 see Albrecht, d at 587 (“We have also treated an attorney’s reputation in the legal community for integrity and hard work as.

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

(noting in a discussion of aggravating and mitigating factors that it was "troubling" that a former client '·was required to commence a lawsuit" in order to receive a payment from the attorney).

When considering the cumulative weight of misconduct, we distinguish “a brief lapse in judgment or a single, isolated incident” from “multiple instances of mis[conduct] occurring over a substantial amount of time.”