Cited by

(stating that a referee’s authority to make evidentiary rulings is reviewed 10 findings are clearly erroneous if, after viewing the record, this court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Id.

See, d 741, 747 (Minn. 2015).

E. Finally, we consider similar cases when deciding what discipline is warranted, Tigue, d at 433, although we will ultimately decide the appropriate discipline on a case-by-case basis, (“ We tailor the sanction to the specific facts of each case .

See, e.g. , In re Walsh , 50 (Minn. 2015) 16 (6-month suspension) ; In re Nathanson , , 81 (Minn. 2012) (90-day suspension).

We gi ve the referee’s findings and conclusions “great deference” and will not reverse those findings or conclusions when “they have evidentiary support in the record and are not clearly erroneous.” Grigsby, d at 60 (citation s omitted) (internal quo tation marks omitted); (providing that when a transcript is ordered, “we review a referee’s conclusion that an attorney’s conduct violated the rules of professional conduct for clear error”) .

11 referee, “subject to review for abuse of discretion.” Id.; d 741, 745 (Minn. 2015) (stating that a referee’ s “evidentiary rulings” are reviewed “for an abuse of discretion”).

(“We defer to a referee’s findings on such matters as ‘credibility, demeanor, and sincerity.’ ” ()).

(recognizing that because disciplinary proceedings are conducted in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure and referees are granted all the powers of a district court judge, we review procedural decisions for an abuse of discretion).

ggravating factor," citing Rebeau ); In re Kennedy , , 350 (Minn. 2015) (accepting without analysis a referee's conclusion that "substantial experience" was an aggravating factor, citing Rebeau ); In re Schulte , , 679 (Minn. 2015) (accepting without analysis that "substantial experience" may be, and actually was, an aggravating factor, citing Rebeau ); In re Walsh , , 750 (Minn. 2015) (accepting without analysis a referee's conclusion that lawyer's "experience as an attorney" was an aggravating

In re Walsh , , 749 (Minn. 2015) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

d 741, 747 (Minn. 2015).