Cited by

neglected client matters; failed to communicate with his clients; practiced law while on suspension in Minnesota; lied to his clients, creditors of his clients, and a Minnesota court; and failed to cooperate with the North Dakota disciplinary board); (imposing indefinite suspension for failure to answer letters and return calls); (imposing disbarment for gross neglect of client matters, failure to communicate with clients, and failure to cooperate).

See, e.g. , In re Redburn , Rhodes

The referee found that Strunk’s diagno sis “was and is Unspecified Paraphilic Disorder.” He then evaluated whether St runk’s condition was a mitigating factor, using the five-factor test we adopted in In re Weyhrich , : (1) the existence of a severe psychological disorder; (2) the psychological disorder directly caused the misconduct; (3) the attorney is undergoing treatment and is making progress to recover from the psychological disorder that caused the misconduct; (4) recovery has arrested th

See, 265 (Minn. 1997) (disbarring an attorney for repeatedly neglecting client matters, among other misconduct); (order); -84 (Minn. 1990); (same).

In In re Weyhrich, we identified five factors for consideration when a "respondent attorney raises psychological disability as a mitigating factor.”

Specifically, the Board argues that a judge who claims disability mitigation should be required to prove by clear and convincing evidence each of the elements required of lawyers in

Relying on (listing requirements that must be met in order for a psychological disability to be considered a mitigating factor), and he contends that this court would have treated his mental illness as a more significant mitigating factor than did the Discretionary Review

See, (ordering disbarment for gross neglect, noncommunication, unexcused absences from scheduled court appearances, and noncooperation); (disbarring attorney for neglect of several client matters with no mitigating circumstances).

In addition, the referee found that Brehmer did not meet his burden of proof to show that his psychological disorder mitigated his misconduct because Brehmer did not prove by clear and convincing evidence each of the four elements of the test we articulated in

See Morin, d at 717 (imposing reciprocal discipline of disbarment for neglecting client matters, making misrepresentations to clients, and failing to cooperate); (imposing indefinite suspension for failure to answer letters and return calls and failure to attend scheduled hearings); (imposing disbarment for gross neglect of client matters, failure to communicate with clients, failure to attend scheduled hearings, and failure to cooperate).

factor contributing to misconduct, the attorney must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he or she has “a severe psychological problem, that the psychological problem was the cause of the misconduct, that he [or she] is undergoing treatment and is making progress to recover, * * * that the recovery has arrested the misconduct, and that the misconduct is not apt to recur.”

If and when respondent petitions for reinstatement pursuant to rule 18, RLPR, his reinstatement shall be conditioned upon his demonstrating, by clear and convincing evidence, that he is fit to practice law, and Respondent pay $900 in costs pursuant to Rule 24(a), RLPR.