Cited by

We have “long recognized that it is imperative that an attorney cooperate with disciplinary authorities in their investigation and resolution of complaints against the lawyer.”

-07 (Minn.1995) (suspending indefinitely an attorney who failed to cooperate with disciplinary investigations); (holding that failure to cooperate, without more, warrants suspension).

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 respond at “any stage of a disciplinary proceeding constitutes a violation of Rule 25, RLPR, and Rule 8.1(b), MRPC.” (holding that a failure to appear at a pre-hearing meeting violates both Rule 8.1(a)(3), MRPC, and Rule 25, RLPR); (“Respondent’s conduct in failing to respond to complaints of unprofessional conduct and in failing to cooperate with any of the Director’s efforts to investigate those complaints constitutes a violation of Rules 8.1(a)(3) and 8.4(d), [MRPC], as well as Rul

785 (Minn.2006) (imposing an indefinite suspension for neglect of a single matter, failure to communicate with the client for several months, practice of law while fee-suspended, and failure to cooperate with the Director’s investigation); -07 (Minn. 1995)

(stating that failing to attend a panel meeting was at least as serious a violation as failing to attend a prehearing meeting and merited a suspension).

And in In re Engel, this court was faced with noncooperation by an attorney with a prior disciplinary history and said “the failure to cooperate is viewed as an act of misconduct warranting an indefinite suspension from the practice of law.”

For example, in -07 (Minn.1995), the attorney had a prior disciplinary history and, during the course of the investigation into allegations of client neglect, was suspended for non-payment of her attorney registration fee.

We have long recognized that it is imperative that an attorney cooperate in a disciplinary investigation, and that failure to cooperate is grounds for public discipline, including suspension, see id.

ommunicate with one client, failure to properly maintain client funds, and failure to cooperate with disciplinary proceedings warranted indefinite suspension); -64 (Minn.1998) (neglect of four clients’ legal matters, failure to communicate with those four clients, and failure to cooperate with disciplinary proceedings warranted indefinite suspension); (failure to cooperate with disciplinary investigation regarding client complaints of neglect warranted indefinite suspension).

(imposing indefinite suspension); Cartwright, d at 552 (imposing six-month suspension).

However, this court has also expressed the need for the attorney’s cooperation with the investigation of a complaint: “[w]e have long recognized that it is imperative that an attorney cooperate with disciplinary authorities in their investigation and resolution of complaints against the lawyer.” (citations omitted).

We have also emphasized the need for the attorney’s cooperation with the investigation of a complaint: “We have long recognized that it is imperative that an attorney cooperate with disciplinary authorities in their investigation and resolution of complaints against the lawyer.” ( In re Larson, 210 Minn. 414 , 298 N.W.

( In re Larson, 210 Minn. 414 , 298 N.W.

In addition, “[w]e have long recognized that it is imperative that an attorney cooperate with disciplinary authorities in their investigation and resolution of complaints against the lawyer.” (citation omitted).

Cf., -07 (Minn.1995); Madsen, d at 435 ; Rockne, d at 29-30 .