Cited by

d 161, 189 (Minn. 2024); .

A finding is clearly erroneous when it leaves us “with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” In re Bonner , (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“A referee’s findings are clearly erroneous when they lea ve us with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” In re Bonner , (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

A finding is clearly erroneous when it leaves us “with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

[and] the failure to file tax returns altogether is a more serious violation than a mere failure to timely file.”); –14 (Minn. 2017) (“We have imposed lengthy periods of suspension on lawyers convicted of felonies for filing false tax returns.”).

(concluding that lack of harm to clients “should not be counted as a mitigating factor because these considerations overlap with our consideration of the harm that [the attorney’s] misconduct caused to the public and the legal profession”).

(“Theft by swindle requires the intent to defraud.”); see also In re Disciplinary Action Against Bonner , (“[T]heft by swindle requires the specific intent to defraud another.”).

(concluding that attorney ’s misconduct involving dishonesty harmed “the legal profession by undermining the public confidence in the honesty and integrity of lawyers”); In re Geiger , (concluding that attorney’s misconduct, including charging unr easonable fees, “

See Flicek, d at 598 (“Theft by swindle requires the intent to defraud.”); (“[T]heft by swindle requires the specific intent to defraud another.”).

“The purpose of discipline for professional misconduct is not to punish the attorney but rather to protect the public, to protect the judicial system, and to deter future misconduct by the disciplined attorney as well as by other attorneys.” (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

(holding that an attorney’s failure to withhold employee contributions to an IRA account over the course of 5 months was not a brief lapse of judgment).

In re Upin , (order); see also In re Bonner , (noting that lack of harm to clients should not be counted as a mitigating factor because it overlaps with the court’s consideration of the harm the misconduct has caused to the public and the legal profession).

" In re Bonner , , 110 (Minn. 2017) (quoting Eskola , d at 301 ).

(indicating that a lack of harm 'to clients goes to the harm caused to the public and is not a mitigating factor); , 390 n.7 (Minn. 2013) (stating that “we generally take the fact that an attorney has committed multiple acts of misconduct into account when considering th