Cited by

“Prior disciplinary history ‘weighs heavily’ if the prior discipline was for similar misconduct.” ().

(stating that substantial experience practicing law is an aggravating factor).

But we have since clarified that “lack of harm to clients should not be considered a separate mitigating factor because we have already considered any harm to clients when assessing the harm that the attorney ’s misconduct caused the public and the legal profession.”

(“Committing misconduct despite .

See, –31 (Minn. 2017) (holding that negligent, unintentional misuse of client funds was still misappropriation).

business account with a debit card, and then use trust account funds to reimburse the attorney for that payment.” n.7 (Minn. 2017).

“Prior discip linary history ‘weighs heavily’ if the prior discip line was fo r similar miscond uc t. ” Hulstrand, d at 444 (quoting In re Tigue , d 424, 432 (Minn. 2017)).

See In re Tigue , , 431 (Minn. 2017).

See In re Tigue , , 431 (Minn. 2017).

See In re Tigue , , 431 (Minn. 2017).

In re Tigue , , 431 (Minn. 2017).

Nevertheless, we acknowledge that “misappropriation of client .funds by its nature harms the public at large and the legal profession, because it betrays the trust the client places in an attorney.”