Opinion ID: 2220111
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Harm to the Public and Harm to the Legal Profession

Text: We must also consider the harm to the public and to the legal profession resulting from Berg's misconduct. The purpose of attorney discipline is not to punish the attorney but rather to protect the courts, the public, and the legal profession. Jellinger, 655 N.W.2d at 316. All of Berg's misappropriations have been repaid. But the harm to the public and the perception of the legal profession caused by an attorney's misappropriation of funds warrants serious discipline. See In re Wentzel, 711 N.W.2d at 522 (noting that misappropriation of client funds reflects poorly on the entire legal profession and erodes the public's confidence in lawyers). Berg's false statements and forgery also warrant serious discipline as they are akin to a breach of trust. See Nelson, 733 N.W.2d at 465 (Honesty and integrity are chief among the virtues the public has a right to expect of lawyers.). Because of the Director's prominent role in the administration of the attorney discipline process, we give some deference to the Director's recommendation of discipline, particularly where contained in a stipulation with the attorney. We observe that under Rule 5, RLPR, the Director shall be responsible and accountable directly to the [Lawyers Professional Responsibility] Board and through the Board to this Court for the proper administration of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility and [the RLPR]. Although we are ultimately responsible for determining the appropriate discipline to be imposed in cases involving professional misconduct by attorneys, we recognize that Director is in the best position to weigh the cost and risk of litigation and to determine when a stipulated discipline will best serve the interests of the Board. The Director and Berg stipulated to discipline based on the existence of mitigating factors. As in Rooney, [t]he presence of numerous mitigating circumstances, none of which alone would suffice to avoid disbarment, persuades us that disbarment in this case is not necessary to achieve the goals of attorney discipline. 709 N.W.2d at 272. Because we agree that the presence of numerous mitigating factors makes disbarment unnecessary to achieve the goals of attorney discipline, we hold that Berg's misconduct warrants the discipline recommended by the stipulation. Accordingly, we order that: 1. Respondent James L. Berg is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in the State of Minnesota, effective 14 days from the date of this decision, and is ineligible to apply for reinstatement for a minimum of five years; 2. Berg shall comply with the notice requirements or Rule 26, RLPR; 3. Berg shall pay to the Director costs in the amount of $900 plus interest and disbursements in the amount of $583.66 plus interest pursuant to Rule 24, RLPR; and 4. If Berg seeks reinstatement, he shall comply in all respects with Rule 18, RLPR. So ordered.