Cited by

Though we are “the sole arbiter of the discipline to be imposed for professional misconduct by Minnesota lawyers,” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted), “we give ‘significant weight’ to a referee’s recommendation,” ().

In determining the appropriate discipline, we consider four factors: “1) the nature of the misconduct, 2) the cumulative weight of the violations of the rules of professional conduct, 3) the harm to the public, and 4) the harm to the legal profession.”

We bear “final responsibility” for imposing discipline on Minnesota attorneys, and we serve as “the sole arbiter of the discipline to be imposed,”

This court bears “final responsibility” for imposing discipline on Minnesota attorneys, and is “the sole arbiter of the discipline to be imposed.”

Our court is “the ‘sole arbiter’ of the discipline to be imposed for professional misconduct by Minnesota lawyers.” ().

(stating that we are “the sole arbiter of the discipline to be imposed”).

Although we give “significant weight” to the referee’s recommended discipline, we are “ ‘the sole arbiter of the discipline to be imposed.’” Albrecht, d at 540 ().

Although we give significant weight to the referee’s recommendation of discipline, we serve as “the sole arbiter of the discipline to be imposed.”

In determining the appropriate discipline, we consider four factors: “1) the nature of the misconduct, 2) the cumulative weight of the violations of the rules of professional conduct, 3) the harm to the public, and 4) the harm to the legal profession.”

See, (stating that by itself, noncooperation with the disciplinary process may warrant indefinite suspension and in connection with other misconduct, noncooperation increases the severity of the disciplinary sanction); (noting that failing to keep proper trust account records, and failing to cooperate with or misrepresenting facts to a disciplinary investigator, are significant breaches of professional conduct standards).

In determining the appropriate sanction for attorney misconduct, this court considers four factors: “ ‘1) the nature of the misconduct, 2) the cumulative weight of the violations of the rules of professional conduct, 3) the harm to the public, and 4) the harm to the legal profession.’ ” ().

In determining the appropriate sanction for attorney misconduct, we consider four factors: “ ‘1) the nature of the misconduct, 2) the cumulative weight of the violations of the rules of professional conduct, 3) the harm to the public, and 4) the harm to the legal profession.’ ” ().

In determining the appropriate sanction for attorney misconduct, we consider four factors: “1) the nature of the misconduct, 2) the cumulative weight of the violations of the rules of professional conduct; 3) the harm to the public, and 4) the harm to the legal profession.” ().

Oberhauser, d at 159 ().

This court considers four factors to determine the appropriate sanction: “1) the nature of the misconduct, 2) the cumulative weight of the violations of the rules of professional conduct, 3) the *374 harm to the public, and 4) the harm to the legal profession.” Oberhauser, d at 159 ().

5 .Compare , 450 *780 (Minn. 1987) (30-day suspension), with (24-month suspension).