December 15, 2016The parties have filed a stipulation for discipline with the court. In it, Duchon withdraws his previously filed answer, unconditionally admits the allegations in the petition for disciplinary action, and waives his rights under Rule 14, RLPR. The parties recommendthat, in light ofmitigating factors, the appropriate discipline is an extension of respondent's cutTent indefinite suspension for a minimum of3 years. "The presumptive discipline for misappropriating client funds is disbarment unless there are 'substantial mitigating circumstances.'" 

### In re Olson, 872 N.W.2d 862, 863-64 (Minn. 2015) (quoting 

### In re Lundeen, 811 N.W.2d 602, 608 (Minn. 2012)). Moreover, attorneys who engage in the unauthorized practice of law while subject to a disciplinary suspension by representing multiple clients over a substantial period oftime are subject to disbarment. 

### See In re Jaeger, 834 N.W.2d 705, 707. 710 (Minn. 2013) (disbarring an attorney for representing clients in nine trademark proceedings over a 7-month period while on a disciplinary suspension). Duchon·s unauthorized practice of law was particularly egregious. Duchon flouted our order suspending him by representing at least 26 clients overthe course of2 years. The partieshaveprovidedus with evidencethat mitigating factors are present in this case, including mental-health problems and extreme personal stress. We do not consider the payment ofpartial restitution a mitigating factor in this case. Duchonrepaid aretainer to one client, but he did so only after the client hired a new attorney and filed a lawsuit against Duchon. 

### See In re Severson, 860 N.W.2d 658, 673 (Minn. 2015) (noting in a discussion ofaggravating and mitigating factors that it was "troubling" that a former client '·was required to commence a lawsuit" in order to receive a payment from the attorney).
2Nevertheless, we agree that disbarment is not warranted because substantial mitigating circumstances exist. The purpose ofdiscipline for professional misconduct is not to punish the attorney buttoprotectthepublic andthejudicial system andto deterfuture professionalmisconduct. In re Plummer, 725 N.W.2d 96, 98 (Minn. 2006). Given the significant misconduct Duchon committed, we conclude that the parties' recommended disposition is insufficient to protect the public and thejudicial system and to deter future misconduct. As a result,

we reject the parties' recommended disposition and conclude that an appropriate disposition is a 5-year suspension. Basedupon all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Respondent James Carl Duchon is indefinitely suspended from the practice oflaw with no right to petition for reinstatement for 5 years from the date ofthis order. 2. Respondent shall comply with Rule 26, RLPR (requiring notice of suspensionto clients, opposing counsel, andtribunals) and shall pay $900 in costs pursuant to Rule 24, RLPR. 3. Respondent shall enter into payment plans with his former clients, D.H. and B.A. Underthese paymentplans, respondent shall make monthly payments of$50 to D.H. until he has paid restitution of$400 and shall make monthlypayments of$50 to B.A. until he has paid restitution of$750. 4. Respondentmaypetitionforreinstatementpursuantto Rule 18(a)-(d), RLPR. Reinstatement is conditioned on (a) successful completion of the written examination 3required for admission to the practice oflaw bythe State Board ofLaw Examiners onthe subject of professional responsibility, (b) satisfaction of continuing legal education requirements pursuantto Rule 18(e), RLPR, (c) complete restiturion to D.H. and B.A., and (d) compliance with the terms ofthis court's March 19, 2013 suspension order. Dated: December 15, 2016

4 BY THE COURT: 

# {)&4

# /4-

DavidR. Stras Associate Justice