Cited by

See In re Wentzell , –09 (Minn. 2003) (imposing a 6-month suspension for misconduct including, in part, making false and misleading statements); (lengthening a suspension based on making a false statement to a tribunal); –98 (Minn. 2008) (imposing a 90-

See In re Torgerson , (stating that clear error exists where we have “a ‘definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made’ ” (quoting In re Wentzell , )).

We give “great deference to a referee’s findings and will not reverse those findings unle ss clearly erroneous, especially in cases where the referee’s findings rest on disputed testimony or in part on respondent’s credibility, demeanor, or sincerity.”

See Rule 14(e), Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR)

(quoting In re Wentzell , , 405 (Minn. 2003) ).

" In re Wentzell , , 405 (Minn. 2003) (quoting In re Strid , , 215 (Minn. 1996) ).

We do, however, give “ ‘great deference to a referee’s findings and will not reverse those findings unless they are clearly erroneous.’” ().

Nevertheless, “we give great deference to a referee’s findings and will not reverse those findings unless they are clearly erroneous, especially in cases where the referee’s findings rest on disputed testimony or in part on respondent’s credibility, demeanor, or sincerity.”

We do, however, give “great deference” to the referee’s findings and uphold those findings “unless they are clearly erroneous.” d 402, 405 (Minn. 2003).

To find that a referee’s findings were clearly erroneous, we must be “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.”

Rule 14(e), Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR)

ve misconduct warranting suspension the “failure to use written retainer agreements in cases in which the client’s advance fee payments were to be nonrefundable [even though it does] not [itself] warrant suspension”); (imposing disbarment for various acts of misconduct including failure to provide an accounting of services and bills); -09 (Minn.2003) (imposing a six-month suspension for misconduct including, in part, making false and misleading statements); (lengthening a suspension based on mak

See, (90-day suspension for false statements under oath during deposition); (six-month suspension for misleading statements and failure to disclose material facts to a bankruptcy court); (six-month suspension for submitting misleading document in workers’ compensation arbitration).

But we give “great deference” to the referee’s findings, and we will uphold the referee’s findings and conclusions “if they have evidentiary support in the record and are not clearly erroneous.” amended by

We give “great deference” to the referee’s findings, however, and will uphold a referee’s findings and conclusions *896 “if they have evidentiary support in the record and are not clearly erroneous.” amended by

We nonetheless give “great deference” to the referee’s findings, and will uphold a referee’s findings and conclusions “if they have evidentiary support in the record and are not clearly erroneous.” amended by

We give “great deference” to the referee’s findings, however, and will uphold a referee’s findings and conclusions “if they have evidentiary support in the record and are not clearly erroneous.” amended by

Nevertheless, we will give great deference to a referee’s findings and will not reverse those findings “unless they are clearly erroneous.”