Findings made in lawyer discipline cases are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard. In re Panel File Number 99-5, 607 N.W.2d 429, 431 (Minn. 2000); see also In re X.Y., 529 N.W.2d 688, 689-90 (Minn. 1995) (noting that since admonitions are a form of attorney discipline, the clearly erroneous standard should be used to review findings).
To determine the appropriate discipline to impose, 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 Panel File No. 99-5 , 607 N.W.2d 429, 431 (Minn. 2000). The nature of the misconduct here is "non-serious."
In determining what discipline to impose, 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 Panel File No. 99-5 , 607 N.W.2d 429, 431 (Minn. 2000). The nature of the misconduct here is "nonserious."
. We review the findings made by a panel for clear error, In re Panel Case No. 23236, 728 N.W.2d 254, 257β58 (Minn.2007), but we have βthe final responsibility for determining appropriate discipline for violations of the rules of professional conduct,β id. at 258 (citing In re Panel File No. 99β5, 607 N.W.2d 429, 431 (Minn.2000)).
We have affirmed admonitions based on minor violations of a single rule. See In re Panel File Number 99-5, 607 N.W.2d 429, 431 (Minn. 2000) (affirming an admonition of a lawyer for violating Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.2(a) for failing to take a settlement offer to an opposing party which his client wanted presented); In re Charges of Unprofessional Conduct Against 97-29, 581 N.W.2d 347, 351 (Minn. 1998) (affirming an admonition of a lawyer for soliciting business in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 7.3 when lawyer made a telephone call specifically soliciting).