Cited by

See, e.g. , In re LaChapelle , , 19-20 (Minn. 1992).

While the amount of money here is not as extreme as in some other disbarment cases, see, ($13,670); ($70,000), we have found disbarment appropriate in cases involving less money than the $2,000 De Rycke misappropriat *375 ed, see, e.g., Grzybek, d at 265 ($750); ($1,600).

ated client funds and who had a prior record of discipline for similar misconduct); (disbarring attorney who misappropriated $15,000 in client funds); (disbarring attorney who misappropriated funds from four clients and made misrepresentations to the clients and the Director to conceal the theft); (disbarring attorney who misappropriated more than $16,000 of client funds, failed to maintain proper trust account records, and falsely certified that his trust account books were in order).

The only exception is “instances when the attorney presents clear and convincing evidence of substantial mitigating circumstances which show that the attorney did not intentionally convert the funds.”

1 *402 “Disbarment is the usual discipline for attorney misappropriation of client funds except in instances when the attorney presents clear and convincing evidence of substantial mitigating circumstances which show that the attorney did not intentionally convert the funds.” -84 (Minn.1997)

In re Olson, mi N.W.2d 218, 220-21 (Minn. 1998)

“Disbarment is the usual discipline for attorney misappropriation of client funds except in instances when the attorney presents clear and convincing evidence of substantial mitigating circumstances which show that the attorney did not intentionally convert the funds.” d at 683 ().

Regarding the misrepresentations that Terrazas made to the Director, we have stated that “[w]e should not hesitate to impose severe discipline when a lawyer demonstrates a lack of truthfulness and candor to the officers of the judicial system.”

See Weems, d at 308 ($70,000); ($13,670); see also Shoemaker, d at 553 ($75,981.99); Olsen, but see Walker, d at 223 ($1,600).

“Misappropriation of client funds usually merits the sanction of disbarment unless the attorney presents clear and convincing evidence of substantial mitigating circumstances which show that the attorney did not intentionally convert the funds.” ().

“Disbarment is the usual discipline for attorney misappropriation of client funds except in instances when the attorney presents clear and convincing evidence of substantial mitigating circumstances which show that the attorney did not intentionally convert the funds.” (“Taken separately, acts of misappropriation, misrepresentation, and trust account mismanagement all warrant serious discipline.”); Lochow, d at 98 (advising the bar that misuse of trust accounts i

This court held “[w]e should not hesitate to impose severe discipline when a lawyer demonstrates a lack of truthfulness and candor * *