Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Strom, 543 N.W.2d 372.

24 citing documents.

In re Petition for Reinstatement of Minn. 2021
ange necessary to again be certified to the public as trustworthy”).15 Finally, we have never done what the di ssent is suggesting here—separate an attorney’s acts of misconduct into different categories and re quire the attorney to show moral change only with respect to some of them.16 Cases the dissent cites when we have 14 –76 (Minn. 1996) (suspending the attorney for 12 months for trust account violations and failure to pay court reporters when the attorney had a disciplinary history).
In re Amoun Vang Sayaovong 909 N.W.2d 575 Minn. 2018
In re Haugen , , 375 (Minn. 1996).
Original Jurisdiction Per Curiam Minn. 2018
In re Disciplinary Action Against Pearson 888 N.W.2d 319 Minn. 2016
tice of the legal profession,” because “it serves to protect the client and avoid even the appearance of professional impropriety.” () (internal quotation marks omitted); (“We take trust account violations serious *322 ly.” ()).
In Re PETITION FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Frank Arend SCHULTE, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 244934 869 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2015
In Re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Mark Alan GREENMAN, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 228990 860 N.W.2d 368 Minn. 2015
In re Disciplinary Action Against Montez 812 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 2012
Trust account violations need not be willful, and we “will not hesitate to impose a disciplinary suspension to protect the public from attorneys who either intentionally or unintentionally fail to exercise care in handling client funds.” (); -71 (Minn.1996) (explaining that lawyers are “charged with the knowledge that [they] must maintain a separate account and adequate records,” and imposing discipline even where an attorney’s trust account violations were not undertaken with intent to defraud
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Varriano 755 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2008
“ ‘We take trust account violations seriously and will not hesitate to impose a disciplinary suspension to protect the public from attorneys who either intentionally or unintentionally fail to exercise care in handling client funds.’ ” ().
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Overboe 745 N.W.2d 852 Minn. 2008
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Nelson 733 N.W.2d 458 Minn. 2007
We “expect[ ] a renewed commitment to comprehensive ethical and professional behavior after a disciplinary proceeding, and [w]here leniency has been shown once, we are reluctant to do so again.” (internal quotations omitted).
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Ek 643 N.W.2d 611 Minn. 2002
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Jellinger 625 N.W.2d 143 Minn. 2001
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Fuller 621 N.W.2d 460 Minn. 2001
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Hoedeman 620 N.W.2d 714 Minn. 2001
In In re Haugen we stated: “We take trust account violations seriously and will not hesitate to impose a disciplinary suspension to protect the public from attorneys who either intentionally or unintentionally fail to exercise care in handling client funds.” , 375 (Minn.1996).
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Brehmer 620 N.W.2d 554 Minn. 2001
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Ray 610 N.W.2d 342 Minn. 2000
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Graham 609 N.W.2d 894 Minn. 2000
We have said that we “ ‘expect[ ] a renewed commitment to comprehensive ethical and professional behavior’ after a disciplinary proceeding, and ‘[w]here leniency has been shown once, we are reluctant to do so again.’ ” ().
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Thedens 602 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 1999
In re Reinstatement to the Practice of Law of HAUGEN 583 N.W.2d 925 Minn. 1998
Haugen was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law for a minimum of 12 months, and WHEREAS, following petitioner’s application for reinstatement to permanent retired status, the matter was heard by a panel of the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board pursuant to Rule 18, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility, which heard testimony from petitioner and the Director’s office
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Olson 577 N.W.2d 218 Minn. 1998
() (further citations omitted).
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Reiter 567 N.W.2d 699 Minn. 1997
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Grzybek 567 N.W.2d 259 Minn. 1997
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Harp 560 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 1997
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Szymialis 557 N.W.2d 554 Minn. 1997
Rather, attorney discipline proceedings are intended to “ ‘protect the public from attorneys who are unable to properly discharge their duties’ ” and to “deter future attorney misconduct.” ().