Cited by

22 (Minn. 2007) (concluding that the petitioner had “current legal skills and knowledge, demonstrated by his successful completion of the professional responsibility exam, satisfaction of his CLE requirements, and his work as a paralegal”); Kadrie, d at 873 (completion of CLE credits and work arranging contracts and assigning legal matters to counsel was sufficient); (completion of CLE credits and work as a paralegal was sufficient).

D-11 intentional misappropriation); In re Trygstad , (conspiracy); Kadrie, d at 869 (forgery and dishonesty); In re Jellinger , –20 (Minn. 2007) (false statements); (fabrication of documents); In re Dedefo , (intentional filing of meritless lawsu

2 d 920 (Minn. 2006); and

We do not consider witness testimony in isolation; rather, we consider the “overall record.” (evaluating “whether petitioner’s overall record of conduct justifies the trust which clients, the court, and others must be able to have in petitioner if he were to be reinstated”).

Reutter, d at 69; Trygstad, d at 9; see In re 6 Trygstad

(evaluating the time since discipline was imposed); -100 (Minn.1987) (evaluating the time since petitioner’s misconduct).

We generally “will defer to a panel’s finding that a petitioner’s testimony that he has undergone the requisite moral change is not credible.” Mose, d at 362 ; (concluding that a petitioner’s testimonial conflict did not bar reinstatement when the panel found genuineness in petitioner’s remorse and change in his moral character).

Strand, 259 Minn. at 381 , d at 519 ; see also Jellinger, d at 921 .