Cited by

We have made clear that “[e]ngaging in frivolous claims or lawsuits violates Rules 3.1, and 8.4(d).” (noting that an attorney’s “groundless claims” violated Rule 3.1 and his attempts to relitigate other baseless claims violated Rule 8.4(d)).

For example, in In re Pinotti, we suspended a lawyer for a minimum of 90 days based on the lawyer’s conduct, which we said “far exceeded] the limits of professional representation, despite the numerous warnings of lower tribunals and heavy sanctions imposed.”

We give “great weight” to the referee’s recommendation for discipline, but the “ultimate responsibility for sanctioning an attorney rests solely with this court.”

(holding that in attorney discipline cases, we uphold a referee’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous).

Findings of fact are reversed only if “upon review of the entire evidence, a reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.”

We give the referee’s recommendation for discipline “great weight” in determining the appropriate form of discipline, but the “ultimate responsibility for sanctioning an attorney rests solely with this court.”

“In other words, findings of fact will be reversed ‘only if, upon review of the entire evidence, a reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has *529 been made.’ ” Erickson, d at 189

(quoting In re Pinotti ).

Nevertheless, this court will only set aside the referee’s findings in a disciplinary action if “upon review of the entire evidence, a reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.”