Cited by

(describing different suspension orders we imposed for noncooperation in disciplinary matters).

See In re Walker , , 223 (Minn. 1990) (stating that *583 an attorney engaged in a pattern of noncooperation when he did not respond to correspondence from the Director, did not answer the petitions, and did not file a brief with this court).

He also failed to cooperate with the disciplinary process, both with 5 respect to the Director’s investigation and the proceeding before us. (holding that an attorney engaged in a pattern of noncooperation when he did not respond to the Director, answer the petitions, or file a brief with this court).

y who misappropriated $1,200 in client funds, engaged in client neglect, and made a misrepresentation in another matter); (order) (disbarring an attorney who, over a period of years, misappropriated client funds, engaged in repeated and continued neglect of client matters, and failed to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation); -23 (Minn. 1990) (disbarring an attorney who misappropriated $1,600 in client funds, neglected eight client matters, failed to return unearned retainers, forged a c

The Director also cites In re Walker as an analogous case, where we disbarred the respondent for “numerous individual violations, any one of which would warrant serious discipline.”

“Sanctions are imposed according to the unique facts of each case, but earlier cases are useful for drawing analogies.”

More particularly, the Director points to to support her contention that we should disbar the respondent.

Failure to cooperate with the disciplinary process is “a serious offense in itself.”

Failure to cooperate with the disciplinary process is “a serious offense in itself.”