Opinion ID: 1831592
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to Cooperate with Director

Text: The referee found that Nelson continually failed to timely respond to the director's requests for information. Also, the referee found that Nelson misled the director. For example, the referee found that, in a letter to the director dated March 21, 2006, Nelson said Regarding [M.L.'s] claim, I have enclosed a copy of a money order for $500 as payment on account, but Nelson did not send the money order to M.L. until months later. The referee found that Nelson's statements were misleading and exhibit[ed] a lack of candor. The referee concluded that Nelson's conduct violated Rules 8.1(a)(3) and 8.1(b) and Rule 25, RLPR. [5] Nelson argues that he was cooperative with the director's investigation, and simply requested extensions when he needed them [and those] extensions were granted. He argues that requests for extensions should not be a basis for an allegation of the failure to cooperate with the director's investigation. The record does not support this argument. The director requested considerable information and documentation that Nelson failed to timely provide. And the director specifically informed Nelson that his failure to cooperate with the director could provide a separate basis for discipline. We conclude that the referee's findings that Nelson failed to cooperate with the director's investigation were not clearly erroneous.
Although we place great weight on the recommendation of the referee, we retain the final responsibility for determining the appropriate sanction. In re Wood, 716 N.W.2d 341, 347 (Minn.2006). In making this determination, we consider four factors: (1) the nature of the misconduct; (2) the cumulative weight of the disciplinary violations; (3) the harm to the public; and (4) the harm to the legal profession. In re Jagiela, 517 N.W.2d 333, 335 (Minn.1994). While this court looks to similar cases for guidance, sanctions are determined on a case-by-case basis after examining the acts of misconduct and considering both aggravating and mitigating circumstances. In re Mayrand, 723 N.W.2d 261, 268 (Minn.2006). A lawyer's prior disciplinary history is relevant to determine an appropriate sanction. In re Gherity, 673 N.W.2d 474, 480 (Minn.2004).