Cited by

“Misappropriati on occurs whenever funds belonging to a client are not deposited in a trust account and are used for any purpose other than that specified by the client.” In re Westby

We are concerned about attorneys who do not acknowledge committing any misconduct because they “might engage in similar conduct in the future unless” they are “appropriately sanctioned.”

See In re Westby , , 370 (Minn. 2002), abrogated on other grounds by In re Jones , , 680 n.9 (Minn. 2013).

" In re Lundeen , , 608 (Minn. 2012) (quoting In re Westby , , 370 (Minn. 2002) ).

Misappropriation of client funds occurs when “‘funds belonging to a client are not deposited in a trust account and are used for any purpose other than that specified by the client.’ ” ().

*871 “Misappropriation occurs whenever funds belonging to a client are not deposited in a trust account and are used for any purpose other than that specified by the client.”

Conduct 8.1(b) and an aggravating factor); -54, 757 (Minn.2005) (holding that an attorney’s failure to respond to a disciplinary petition or appear for meetings with the Director was both a rule violation and an aggravating factor); -71 (Minn.2002) (holding that an attorney's failure to respond to a disciplinary notice and interference with the investigation was both a rule violation and an aggravating factor).

See, e.g., Redburn, d at 337 ; -71 (Minn.2002).

at 802-03 ; 19 and (5) Voss’s lack of recognition of and remorse for his misconduct, especially his attempts to shift the blame to his staff

“Misappropriation occurs whenever funds belonging to a client are not deposited in a trust account and are used for any purpose other than that specified by the client.”

The failure to reasonably respond to a Director’s notice of investigation constitutes noncooperation, and is a separate act of misconduct distinct from the underlying violations that warrants public discipline including suspension, (holding failure to cooperate warrants indefinite suspension).

Failure to appropriately respond at any stage of a disciplinary proceeding constitutes a violation of Rule 25, RLPR, and Rule 8.1(b), MRPC, including failure to respond to a notice of investigation, and failure to attend a pre-hearing meeting, see Rule 9(e), RLPR (making the lawyer’s attendance at the prehearing meeting mandatory).

(“[Cjonduct which interferes with the disciplinary process is prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule 8.4(d).”).

365, 368 (Minn.2002) (concluding that the lawyer had violated Rule 1.4(b) by failing to disclose to clients that she was suspended from the practice of law when she accepted retainers from clients, obtained a continuance for a matter, and helped clients prepare for hearings); see also Attorney Griev.

“Rulings on evidentiary matters are left to the discretion of the district court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.” (citing Jenson v. Touche Ross & Co., ).

370 (Minn.2002) (“A lawyer * * * violates Rule 8.4(c) by making false representations with an intent to deceive.”).

We also have stated that “[misappropriation occurs whenever funds belonging to a client are not deposited in a trust account and are used for any purpose other than that specified by the client.”

Nevertheless, this court gives “great deference to a referee’s findings on disputed facts and will not reverse the referee’s findings and conclusions unless they are clearly erroneous.”