Cited by

(citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

(finding 6 years after admission to practice law and 2 years of full-time practice at the time of his first act of misconduct was an aggravating factor); (holding that 15 years of practice aggravated the sanction).

See In re Kaszynski , 713-14 (Minn. 2001).

Fru, (stating that “[w]e are particularly troubled by the fact that Fru’s misconduct threatened the immigration status of many of his clients” and that those clients were “vulnerable and depended on him to guide them through the complex—and often punitive— maze of federal immigration law” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted))

See In re Kaszynski , (recognizing vulnerability of immigration clients as an aggrava ting factor); In re Udeani , –99 (Minn. 2020) (same).

Conduct 5.3(c); see, (stating that “under Minn. R. Prof.

See In re Kaszynski , , 712 (Minn. 2001).

See In re Rooney , , 271 n.4 (Minn. 2006) ; In re Kaszynski , , 712 (Minn. 2001) (recognizing lack of remorse as an aggravating factor).

-11 (Minn.2001) (concluding that lawyer violated Rule 1.1 by failing to explain the risks of filing certain papers with the Immigration and Naturalization Service); In re Panel File 96-35, -02 (Minn.1997) (concluding that lawyer violated Rule 1.1 by not advising her client of the consequences of

Conduct 5.3; (failure to adequately train and supervise non-lawyer assistant that results in harm to client is a violation of Minn. R. Prof.

occurred at a time when she was particularly vulnerable, that the conflict was clear and certain, and that the foreseeable and likely consequence of his advice was G.K’s prosecution for perjury.