Opinion ID: 2021106
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: The Cumulative Weight of the Misconduct

Text: Recently, discussing the cumulative weight of an attorney's misconduct, we noted that: In determining the appropriate discipline for professional misconduct, we consider not just the nature of each individual violation of the rules of professional conduct but also the cumulative weight of all of the professional misconduct   . We have repeatedly held that `[t]he cumulative weight and severity of multiple disciplinary rule violations may compel severe discipline even when a single act standing alone would not have warranted such discipline.' Rhodes, 740 N.W.2d at 580. Redburn's current misconduct includes failure to communicate with three clients, failure to provide diligent representation, failure to refund $3,000 in retainer fees and account to clients for those fees, failure to inform clients of his suspension, failure to protect two clients' interests on termination of representation, failure to pay a professionally incurred debt, failure to file an affidavit with the Director's office documenting notification of clients and tribunals of his suspension, and failure to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation. [5] In addition, some of Redburn's actions involved dishonesty and were prejudicial to the administration of justice. [6] We also note that much of Redburn's current misconduct is similar to his prior misconduct. We have imposed severe sanctions, including disbarment, in part because an attorney's misconduct is similar or identical to that attorney's prior misconduct. Rhodes, 740 N.W.2d at 579 (disbarring attorney in part because his misconduct closely resemble[d] the misconduct for which [the court] previously disciplined [him]); De Rycke, 707 N.W.2d at 374 (noting similarity between instances of neglect in the disciplinary action before the court and instances of neglect in the attorney's disciplinary history); In re Brehmer, 642 N.W.2d 431, 434 (Minn.2002) (disbarring attorney in part because much of his misconduct was similar, if not identical, to the misconduct that resulted in his previous discipline); In re Grzybek, 567 N.W.2d 259, 263 (Minn.1997) (disbarring attorney in part because attorney's misconduct in the case before the court continued a pattern of conduct for which [the court had] already disciplined [the attorney]); In re Getty, 518 N.W.2d 18, 21 (Minn. 1994) (disbarring attorney in part because of similarity between misconduct before the court and that in attorney's disciplinary history demonstrated a habit). The misconduct in Redburn's disciplinary history includes neglect of client matters, failure to communicate, failing to pay a fee owed to a professional for in court services, and failing to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation. Redburn's actions in representing B.B., T.K. and S.K., and D.M., and his failure to pay M.M. were similar to his prior acts of misconduct. In this respect Redburn's disciplinary history aggravates his current misconduct and justifies severe discipline. Another factor aggravating Reburn's misconduct is that much of it occurred while Redburn was suspended from the practice of law. In De Rycke, we indicated that an attorney had fallen far short of showing a renewed commitment to the ethical practice of law in part because all of the new allegations occurred either while [the attorney] was on probation    or after he was suspended. 707 N.W.2d at 375. Though not all of the new allegations of Redburn's misconduct occurred while he was suspended, Redburn's failure to communicate with B.B., his failure to communicate with T.K. and S.K., and his failure to account for D.M.'s retainer fee occurred after his August 2005 suspension.