Cited by

(disbarring attorney who, among other things, misappropriated funds from a ward); (disbarring attorney who, among other things, took “advantage of a trusting, vulnerable client to put $100,000” in the attorney’s business venture); (stating that when an attorney “exhibits callous disregard for the .

Where “an attorney exhibits callous disregard for the physical and financial well-being of vulnerable, dependent persons, that attorney has a heavy burden to persuade the court of his fitness to continue the practice of law.”

We have identified four factors to assess the appropriate discipline for a lawyer’s misconduct: “(1) the nature of the misconduct; (2) the cumulative weight of the disciplinary violations; (3) the harm to the public; and (4) the harm to the legal profession.” (d at 463 )

() (internal quotation marks omitted).

(“The final responsibility for determining appropriate discipline rests solely with this court.”).

(internal citations omitted).

(internal quotation omitted).

(internal quotation omitted).

Nonetheless, community service and other good works generally “do not militate against the imposition of discipline in matters of serious ethical misconduct.” Stromwall, d at 62 ().

(“There is a less tangible, yet no less real, harm to the public-at-large that occurs when an attorney’s conduct is the subject of negative media attention.”).

Kasz-ynski’s representation threatened the immigration status of many of his clients and “contravened one of the most fundamental concepts of his profession: that he should represent his clients competently and zealously, without prejudice or damage to those clients.” (ordering disbarment for a pattern of misconduct including self-dealing, intentional harm to two wards, client neglect, misrepresentations, excessive fees, conflict of interest, and the unauthorized practice of law).

See, (vulnerable elderly person); (trusting vulnerable client); (attorney has heavy burden to persuade court of fitness to practice law where he exhibits callous disregard for physical and financial wellbeing of vulnerable, dependent persons).

to recommend disbarment by what he described as the “implausibilities of respondent’s story.” In support of the referee’s disbarment recommendation, the director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility cites several disciplinary decisions by this court involving an attorney’s misuse of an elderly client’s assets, among them and

In determining the appropriate sanction, “we consider the nature of the misconduct, the cumulative weight of thé violations, the harm to the public and the harm to the profession.” ().

We take these mitigating circumstances into account but these factors will not “militate against the imposition of discipline in matters of serious ethical misconduct.”

We also think that the referee properly refused to recognize as a mitigating circumstance respondent’s community service; although commendable, factors such as community service “do not militate against the imposition of discipline in matters of serious ethical misconduct.”

3 “While the referee’s recommendation is entitled to great weight * * * final responsibility for determining the appropriate discipline rests solely with this court.” ().

In determining appropriate discipline, we “weigh carefully the nature of the misconduct, the cumulative weight of the disciplinary rule violations, the harm to the public, and the harm to the legal profession.”