Cited by

(neglecting to file briefs); (order) (failing to communicate); –22 (Minn. 2017) (failing to keep client apprised of case status or provide client with important case-related documents); Taplin, d at 312 (failing

–65 (Minn. 1997) (stating that “repeated failure to comply with court orders” is a “serious violation” that itself is a ground for disbarment); see also In re Rhodes, 13 (concluding that failure to cooperate with the Director’s investigation was “serious misconduct” that is “se

In determining the appropriate sanction for an attorney who has misappropriated funds, “the amount of misappropriation is an appropriate consideration.” n.1 (Minn. 1997).

Although “the misappropriation of small amounts of money is [not ] somehow defensible,” we have said that “the amount of 12 the misappropriation is an appropriate c onsideration in determining sanctions.” n.1 (Minn. 1997).

“We do not impose disciplinary sanctions to punish a lawyer; rather, we do so ‘to protect the public, to guard the administration of justice and to deter future misconduct’ by both the individual lawyer and by othe r members of the legal profession.” (quoting In re Grzybek , ).

See In re Ulanowski , , 797, 804 (Minn. 2011) (suspending an attorney for 1 year for failure to communicate a plea offer, among other violations); De Rycke , d at 374, 376 (disbarring attorney after failure to communicate a plea offer, among other violations); In re Grzybek , , 263, 265 (Minn. 1997) (same).

See In re Capistrant , , 622 (Minn. 2018) (disbarring an attorney who misappropriated $547); In re Rodriguez , , 170 (Minn. 2010) (disbarring an attorney who misappropriated $650); In re Grzybek , , 265 (Minn. 1997) (disbarring an attorney who misappropriated $750).

(order) (disbarring an attorney who misappropriated $650); (disbarring an attorney who misappropriated $750).

at 272 ; , 264 n.1 (Minn. 1997) (stating that while “the misappropriation of small amounts of money is [not] defensible, ...

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

In support of the Director’s position that Matson should be disbarred, the Director cites

(disbarring attorney who repeatedly failed to comply with court orders, misappropriated client funds, made multiple misrepresentations to tribunals and clients, and repeatedly neglected client matters); -65 (Minn. 1997) (stating that there were “at least three separate grounds upon which [the attorney] could be disbarred,” including his “repeated failure to comply with court orders”); -70 (Minn. 2013) (determining that disbarment was

(“We have said that ‘[a] continuing pattern of client neglect is serious misconduct often warranting indefinite suspension by itself....’”) (); (“Repeated neglect of client matters, misrepresentations, and failure to communicate with clients typically warrant indefinite suspension.”).

.” In re Daly, 291 Minn. 488, 495 , (disbarring an attorney for, among other things, continuing to file lawsuits after a federal court had issued an order prohibiting him from relitigating a particular issue and willfully defying an order from this court forbidding him from engaging in further proceedings in a case before a justice of the peace); (stating that the attorney’s “behavior provided us with at least three separate grounds upon which he could be disbarred,” including “his repeated fail

(observing that the attorney’s misappropriation of $750 in client funds and subsequent failure to make any effort to return the money constituted an independent ground upon which the attorney could be disbarred).

265 (Minn.1997) (disbarring an attorney, in part, for repeated neglect of client matters); (disbarring an attorney for engaging in repeated and continued neglect of client matters, misappropriating client funds, and failing to cooperate with the Director’s investigatio

(finding a clear violation of Rules 1.3 and 1.4, MRPC, when attorney did not inform client of a plea offer); (holding that the attorney’s failure to inform his client of a settlement offer from opposing counsel “clearly violated” Rule 1.4, MRPC).

d at 336 (concluding that the cumulative weight and severity of multiple disciplinary rule violations may compel severe discipline even when a single act would not have warranted such discipline); see also, (holding that repeated neglect of client matters, noncooperation with the disciplinary process misappropriation, and failure to follow court orders merit disbarment).

“After a disciplinary proceeding, this court expects a renewed commitment to comprehensive ethical and professional behavior, and where leniency has been shown once, this court is reluctant to do so again.” ().

Rycke, d at 374 (noting similarity between instances of neglect in the disciplinary action before the court and instances of neglect in the attorney’s disciplinary history); (disbarring attorney in part because much of his misconduct was “similar, if not identical, to the misconduct that resulted in his previous discipline”); (disbarring attorney in part because attorney’s misconduct in the case before the court “continued a pattern of conduct for which [the court had] already disciplined [the a

(Grzybek II); -88 (Minn.2005).

He compares De Rycke’s unprofessional behavior to conduct that warranted disbarment in

264 n. 1 (Minn.1997) (reviewing a cross-section of misappropriation eases that resulted in disbarment).

8.1(a)(3); -64 (Minn.1997).