Cited by

In assessing cumulative weight, we consider “the conduct giving rise to discipline as a whole.” –300 (Minn. 2017).

–30 (Minn. 2023) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); (explaining that the cumulative nature of an attorney’s misconduct over 2 years warranted severe discipline).

We distinguish between misconduct that is an “isolated incident” from misconduct that shows a pattern 18 “occurring over a substantial amount of time.” In re Eskola , ( citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

We treat an “isolated incident” differently from a pattern of misconduct “occurring over a 22 substantial amount of time.” In re Eskola , (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

B. Next, we address “the cumulative weight” of the disciplinary violations “as a whole.” –300 (Minn. 2017) (citation omitted) (internal 17 quotation marks omitted).

(noting that the failure to safeguard client property is serious misconduct).

See, e.g. , Klotz, d at 340 (determining that the attorney’s lack of selfish motivation in intentionally mis appropriating client funds was a mitigating factor); (concluding that the attorney’s lack of intent to permanently deprive clients of their funds mitigated his intentional misappropriation); In re Rooney , (discussing the attorney’s intent to 19 4.

In re Eskola , , 296 (Minn. 2017).

See In re Eskola , , 299 (Minn. 2017) (stating that an attorney "misappropriated client funds by depositing these funds into his business account and then using those funds for purposes other than those specified by the client" and that even though the attorney "did not intend to permanently deprive his clients of their funds," this was

More recently, however, we have held that although “multiple acts or a pattern of misconduct may properly influence the cumulative weight analysis,” which is a factor we consider when determining appropriate discipline, “they cannot also serve as an additional aggravating factor.”