Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Petition for Discipl. Act. Against Weems, 540 N.W.2d 305.

33 citing documents.

In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Ana L. Pena, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0386459 Minn. 2025
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Ana L. Pena, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0386459 Minn. 2025
“After a disciplinary proceeding, we expect a renewed commitment to comprehensive ethical and professional behavior.”
In re Disciplinary Action Against Upin 904 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 2017
In re Disciplinary Action Against Upin 904 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 2017
“In cases where this court has not imposed disbarment for extensive misappropriation of client funds, substantial mitigating circumstances were present.”
In re Disciplinary Action Against Jaeger 834 N.W.2d 705 Minn. 2013
In re Disciplinary Action Against Jaeger 834 N.W.2d 705 Minn. 2013
When an attorney has been disciplined, we expect “ ‘a renewed commitment to comprehensive ethical and professional behavior.’ ” Rhodes, d at 580 ().
In re Disciplinary Action Against Lundeen 811 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2012
In re Disciplinary Action Against Lundeen 811 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2012
We consider misappropriation of client funds a particularly serious violation and “generally disbar attorneys who misappropriate client funds” unless there are “ ‘substantial mitigating circumstances.’ ” -21 (Minn.2006) ().
In re Disciplinary Action Against Wolff 810 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 2012
In re Disciplinary Action Against Wolff 810 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 2012
-09 (Minn.1995) (concluding that an attorney’s noncooperation with disciplinary proceedings contributed to the cumulative weight of the violations that compelled disbarment).
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Rodriguez 783 N.W.2d 170 Minn. 2010
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Rhodes 740 N.W.2d 574 Minn. 2007
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Rhodes 740 N.W.2d 574 Minn. 2007
E. Prior History of Professional Misconduct and Discipline “After a disciplinary proceeding, [this court] expectfs] a renewed commitment to comprehensive ethical and professional behavior.”
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Wentzel 711 N.W.2d 516 Minn. 2006
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Wentzel 711 N.W.2d 516 Minn. 2006
“In cases where this court has not imposed disbarment for extensive misappropriation of client funds, substantial mitigating circumstances were present.”
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Rooney 709 N.W.2d 263 Minn. 2006
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Rooney 709 N.W.2d 263 Minn. 2006
“In cases where this court has not imposed disbarment for extensive misappropriation of client funds, substantial mitigating circumstances were present.”
In Re Disciplinary Action Against De Rycke 707 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 2006
In Re Disciplinary Action Against De Rycke 707 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 2006
While the amount of money here is not as extreme as in some other disbarment cases, see, ($13,670); ($70,000), we have found disbarment appropriate in cases involving less money than the $2,000 De Rycke misappropriat *375 ed, see, e.g., Grzybek, d at 265 ($750); ($1,600).
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Graham 609 N.W.2d 894 Minn. 2000
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Graham 609 N.W.2d 894 Minn. 2000
(disbarring attorney for violating terms of probation, misappropriation of client funds, noncooperation, and exhibiting a pattern of neglect, noncommunication, and failure to return client files and unearned retainers); (disbarring attorney for m
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Thedens 602 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 1999
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Thedens 602 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 1999
State v. Miller 600 N.W.2d 457 Minn. 1999
State v. Miller 600 N.W.2d 457 Minn. 1999
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Davis 585 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 1998
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Davis 585 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 1998
(finding that lawyer’s noncooperation with the disciplinary process contributed to the cumulative weight of the disciplinary rule violations that compelled disbarment).
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Grzybek 567 N.W.2d 259 Minn. 1997
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Grzybek 567 N.W.2d 259 Minn. 1997
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Randall 562 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 1997
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Randall 562 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 1997
“Disbarment is the usual discipline for attorney misappropriation of client funds except in instances when the attorney presents clear and convincing evidence of substantial mitigating circumstances which show that the attorney did not intentionally convert the funds.” LaChapelle, d at 21
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Harp 560 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 1997
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Harp 560 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 1997
(“We generally require a continuing pattern of serious professional misconduct before disbarring an attorney.”); (disbarring attorney for violating terms of his probation, misappropriation of client funds, noncooperation, and exhibiting a pattern of neglect, noncommunication, and failure to return client files and unearned retainers); (ordering disbarment for repeated and continu