When determining the discipline to be imposed for attorney misconduct, this court accords great weight to the referee's recommendations; however, we are ultimately responsible for determining the appropriate sanction. In re Hartke, 529 N.W.2d 678, 683 (Minn. 1995). In making that determination, this court weighs the nature of the misconduct; the cumulative weight of the disciplinary violations; harm to the public; and harm to the legal profession.
That an attorney has obtained "excellent results" for "sometimes difficult clients" has been treated as a mitigating factor by a referee. In re Hartke, 529 N.W.2d 678, 683 (Minn. 1995). But we have also stated that, where evidence of reputation or "excellent results" comes only from testimony, the "referee is in the best position to assess the relative weight to give to witnesses' testimony."
Albrecht points out that, in past disciplinary proceedings, the fact that an attorney in a disciplinary proceeding has an "extensive, busy practice" and has obtained "excellent results" for "sometimes difficult clients" has been treated as a mitigating factor. In re Hartke, 529 N.W.2d 678, 683 (Minn. 1995). We have also treated an attorney's "reputation in the legal community for integrity and hard work" as a mitigating factor.
In addition, the attorney's disciplinary history is relevant. See In re Hartke, 529 N.W.2d 678, 683 (Minn. 1995). We have said that we "`expect a renewed commitment to comprehensive ethical and professional behavior' after a disciplinary proceeding, and `[w]here leniency has been shown once, we are reluctant to do so again.'"
In particular, this court "accords deference to a referee's findings when they are based on conflicting testimony or in part on a respondent's demeanor, credibility, or sincerity." In re Hartke, 529 N.W.2d 678, 679-80 (Minn. 1995). Upon review of the record before us, we conclude that the referee's findings as to Hanvik's remorse, pro bono work, and volunteer activities, are adequately supported by the record.