Cited by

In deciding what discipline to impose, we have held that the purposes of disciplinary sanctions are not to punish the attorney but “to protect the public, to protect the judicial system, and to deter future misconduct by the disciplined attorney as well as by other attorneys.”

In making the determination regarding reciprocal discipline, we are guided by the principle that the purpose of attorney discipline is “to protect the public, to protect the judicial system, and to deter future misconduct by the disciplined attorney as well as by other attorneys.”

“[T]he cumulative weight and severity of multiple disciplinary rule violations may compel severe discipline even when a single act standing alone would not have warranted such discipline.”

In deciding what discipline to impose, we have held that the purposes of disciplinary sanctions are “to protect the public, to protect the judicial system, and to deter future misconduct by the disciplined attorney as well as by other attorneys.”

The purposes of disciplinary sanctions are “to protect the public, to protect the judicial system, and to deter future misconduct by the disciplined attorney as well as by other attorneys.”

Thus, “the cumulative weight and severity of multiple disciplinary rule violations may compel severe discipline even when a single act standing alone would not have warranted such discipline.”

Accordingly, the “cumulative weight and severity of multiple disciplinary rule violations may compel severe discipline even when a single act standing alone would not have warranted such discipline.” d 153, 160 (Minn. 2004).

Accordingly, “the cumulative weight and severity of multiple disciplinary rule violations may compel severe discipline even when a single act standing alone would not have warranted such discipline.”

Even if “a single act standi ng alone would not have warra nted such discipline,” we recognize that “the cumulative weight and severity of multiple disciplinary rule violations may compel severe discipline.” In re Oberhauser

“[T]he cumulative weight and severity of multiple disciplinary rule violations may compel severe discipline even when a single act standing alone would not have warranted such discipline.” .

( “Rule 19(a)’s presumption lends itself to the additional presumption that, as here, when the criminal conduct includes a specific state of mind, the conviction is conclusive evidence that the lawyer acted with that state of mind.”).

Id.; (“[T]he cumulative weight and 16 severity of multiple disciplinary rule violations may compel severe discipline even when a single act standing alone would not have warranted such discipline.”).

14 alone would not have warranted such discipline.”

The purpos es of attorney disc ipline “are to protect the public, to protect the judicial system, and to deter future misconduct by the disciplined attorney as well as by other attorneys.”

And “the cumulative weight and severity of multiple disciplinary rule violations may compel severe discipline even when a single act standing alone would not have warrant ed such discipline.”

“The cumulative weight and severity of mult ip le discip li na r y rule violations may compel severe discipline even when a sing le act standing alone would not have warranted such di scipline.” In re Oberhauser

” (Minn. 3 It does not change our analysis that the referee ordered a transcript to assist in the preparation of his report.

“[T]he cumulative weight and severity of multiple disciplinary rule violations may compel severe discipline even when a single act standing alone would not have warranted such discipline.”

Our precedent recognizes “that the cumulative weight and severity of multiple disciplinary rule violations may compel severe discipline even when a single act standing alone would not have warranted such discipline.” In re Oberhauser

In re Oberhauser , , 159 (Minn. 2004).

" Montez , d at 69 (quoting In re Oberhauser , , 160 (Minn. 2004) ).

“[T]he cumulative weight and severity of multiple disciplinary rule violations may compel severe discipline even when a single act standing alone would not have warranted such discipline.” (citation omitted).

We next consider “the cumulative weight and severity of multiple disciplinary rule violations,” which “may compel severe discipline even when a single act standing alone would not have warranted such discipline.”

(“Rule 19(a)’s presumption lends itself to the additional presumption that, as here, when the criminal conduct includes a specific state of mind, the conviction is conclusive evidence that the lawyer acted with that state of mind”).

In examining this factor, “[w]e look at the *300 conduct giving rise to discipline as a whole, and have recognized that ‘the cumulative weight and severity of multiple disciplinary rule violations may compel severe discipline even when a single act standing alone would not have warranted such discipline.’ ” Montez, d at 69 ().

The “cumulative weight and severity of multiple disciplinary rule violations may compel severe discipline even when a single act standing alone would not have warranted such discipline.”

Next we consider “the cumulative weight and severity of multiple disciplinary rule violations,” which “may compel severe discipline even when a single act standing alone would not have warranted such discipline.”

Rather, we account for “the cumulative weight and severity of multiple disciplinary rule violations.”

(“[T]he cumulative weight and severity of multiple disciplinary rule violations may compel severe discipline even when a single act standing alone would not have warranted such discipline.”).

(alteration omitted) ().

“[T]he cumulative weight and severity of multiple disciplinary rule violations may compel severe discipline even when a single act standing alone would not have warranted such discipline.”

“[T]he cumulative weight and severity of multiple disciplinary rule violations may compel severe discipline even when a single act standing alone would not have warranted such discipline.”

d 153, 160 (Minn. 2004) (“[T]he cumulative weight and severity of multiple disciplinary rule violations may compel severe discipline even when a single act standing alone would not have warranted such discipline.”).

In considering the cumulative weight of the violations, we have stated that the weight and severity of multiple rule violations over time “may compel severe discipline even when a single act standing alone would not have warranted such discipline.”

We have said “that the cumulative weight and severity of multiple disciplinary rule violations may compel severe discipline even when a single act standing alone would not have warranted such discipline.”

“[T]he cumulative weight and severity of multiple disciplinary rule violations may compel severe discipline even when a single act standing alone would not have warranted such discipline.”

B. “[T]he cumulative weight and severity of multiple disciplinary rule violations may compel severe discipline even when a single act standing alone would not have warranted such discipline.”

“[T]he cumulative weight and severity of multiple disciplinary rule violations may compel severe discipline even when a single act standing alone would not have warranted such discipline.”

The severity and cumulative weight of multiple disciplinary rule violations “may compel severe discipline even when a single act standing alone would not have warranted such discipline.”

“[T]he cumulative weight and severity of multiple disciplinary rule violations may compel severe discipline even when a single act standing alone would not have warranted such discipline.”

B. We have held that “the cumulative weight and severity of multiple disciplinary rule violations may compel severe discipline even when a single act standing alone would not have warranted such discipline.” d at 464 .

“[T]he cumulative weight and severity of multiple disciplinary rule violations may compel severe discipline even when a single act standing alone would not have warranted such discipline.”

“[TJhe cumulative weight and severity of multiple disciplinary rule violations may compel severe discipline even when a single act standing alone would not have warranted such discipline.”

The purpose of disciplinary sanctions “is not to punish the attorney, but rather ‘to protect the public, to protect the judicial system, and to deter future misconduct by the disciplined attorney as well as by other attorneys.’ ” ().

“[T]he cumulative weight and severity of multiple disciplinary rule violations may compel severe discipline even when a single act standing alone would not have warranted such discipline.”

Disciplinary sanctions for professional misconduct are meant “to protect the public, to protect the judicial system, and to deter future misconduct by the disciplined attorney as well as by other attorneys.”

-89 (Minn.2006) (disbarring attorney convicted of mail and wire fraud, money laundering, and fraudulent concealment of material facts); 569 (Minn.2004) (disbarring attorney convicted of four counts of mail fraud); -60 (Minn.2004) (disbarring attorney convicted of money laundering).

We have said that “the purposes of disciplinary sanctions for professional misconduct are to protect the public, to protect the judicial system, and to deter future misconduct by the disciplined attorney as well as by other attorneys.”