Cited by

Though we are “the sole arbiter of the discipline to be imposed for professional misconduct by Minnesota lawyers,” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted), “we give ‘significant weight’ to a referee’s recommendation,” ().

n.3 (Minn. 2016) (declining to address an argument that was raised for the first time at oral argument).

Although more than a brief lapse in judgment, his conduct across two matters does not form an extended pattern warranting more severe discipline.

n.3 (Minn. 2016) (refusing to address issue raised for first time at oral argument).

The clear-and-convincing evidentiary standard is demanding, requiring “a high probability that the facts are true.” See In re Houge , see also In re Stoneburner , (“[C]lear and convincing evidence requires more than a preponderance of the evidence, but 7 less than proof beyond a reas onable doubt.”).

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

In re Stoneburner , , 203 (Minn. 2016).

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

“[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.’ ” ().

203 n.3 (Minn. 2016) (refusing to address an issue raised for the first time at oral argument).