FILE NO. FILED STATE OF MINNESOTA March 25, 2020 Um IN SUPREME COURT APPELLATEEMTE In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action PETITION FOR REVOCATION OF against MICHELLE LOWNEY PROBATION AND FOR FURTHER a Minnesota Attorney, DISCIPLINARY ACTION Registration No. 0182370. TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility (Director) files this petition pursuant to Rule 12(a), Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR), and pursuant to this Court?s March 27, 2018, probation order in the matter. The above?named attorney (respondent) was admitted to practice law in Minnesota on September 11, 1987. Respondent currently practices law in West St. Paul, Minnesota. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to a January 17, 2018, order, this Court suspended respondent from the practice of law, effective January 31, 2018, for a minimum of 60 days and ordered respondent placed on probation for two years. A copy of the Court?s order is attached as Exhibit 1. Respondent?s discipline was based upon respondent failing to competently represent a client; making false statements about the integrity of a judge with reckless disregard for the truth; improperly using subpoenas; knowingly disobeying a court rule and failing to follow a scheduling order; and engaging in disruptive courtroom conduct, including behavior resulting in her arrest. Among the conditions of respondent?s probation were the following: Respondent shall abide by the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct. a-x-x- Respondent shall initiate and maintain procedures that ensure thorough inquiry into, and verification of, factual allegations in pleadings and court filings. . . . Respondent has committed the following unprofessional conduct warranting revocation of probation and further public discipline: DISCIPLINARY HISTORY A. On January 17, 2018, respondent was suspended from the practice of law for a minimum of 60 days effective January 31, 2018, as noted above. B. On August 10, 2012, respondent was issued an admonition for failing to deposit settlement proceeds into a trust account, failing to maintain proper trust account books and records, failing to deliver funds to a client, failing in her duty to be responsible for the conduct of a non-lawyer, and failing to cooperate with the Director?s investigation in violation of Rules and (4), and Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC), and Rule 25, RLPR. FIRST COUNT Repeating Prior Misconduct 1. Respondent represented S.G-R. in a family court matter, which included issues of dissolution and child custody and support. Dakota County District Court Judge David Knutson presided over the matter from 2011 through approximately August 2014. Respondent?s prior public discipline related to this representation and included making false statements about the integrity of Judge Knutson with reckless disregard for the truth while representing Specifically, the referee found and the Court upheld that respondent?s allegation that Judge Knutson lacked impartiality in the family court matter was false and made in reckless disregard of the truth. The referee also found and the Court upheld that respondent?s allegations that Judge Knutson repeatedly retaliated and acted with malice against respondent and compromised MNCIS, ?usurped? case files in concert with opposing counsel, signed documents he knew to be false, issued an ex parte order, and used professionals to 2 gather data he knew was false, which respondent made in federal lawsuit against Judge Knutson, were, in part, false and made with reckless disregard for the truth. 2. During the fall of 2018, respondent was a candidate for the Minnesota Supreme Court. On October 3, 2018, respondent was interviewed by Blois Olson on WCCO Radio?s Midday program. During the interview respondent discussed dissolution and child custody matter and, despite having been previously disciplined for making false statements about Judge Knutson?s integrity and actions, stated Judge Knutson violated the rights of both and the father of children by ordering that they ?had no contact with their children whatsoever.? Respondent stated ?the judge [Knutson] did that in September of 2012 without any hearing, without any process . . . While discussing whether was guilty of committing a crime herself, respondent stated, never, never thought that what she did was a crime. Uh, the crime was with the court when Judge Knutson did an order that neither parent could contact their kids. That?s when the deprivation happened.? While explaining why she sought election to the Supreme Court, respondent stated, ?I?ve witnessed an unprecedented display of courts abusing their discretion and authority, damaging people and familiesexample of that.? 3. Respondent?s statement that Judge Knutson?s September 2012 order preventing and children?s father from having contact with the children was done ?without any hearing, without any process? was knowingly false. Respondent knew her statements were false as she had been previously disciplined for making them, and the testimony presented at her trial conclusively established the falsity of the statement. The order respondent referenced was issued following an emergency telephonic conference in which counsel for both parties, as well as the Guardian ad Litem (GAL) in the matter were present, and based upon ?the files and pleadings herein, arguments of counsel, reports of the . . . and records and proceedings herein . . . In fact, the order wasissued pursuant to a stipulation 3 prepared by former counsel, E.H., and other involved parties. The parties agreed at the end of September 2012 to jointly submit a stipulation and order for custody, which requested that Judge Knutson transfer joint legal and physical custody of the parties? children to two of their aunts. Judge Knutson signed the parties proposed order, which was prepared by E.H., counsel for S.G-R., on October 1, 2012. 4. Respondent?s knowingly false statements about the integrity of Judge Knutson on October 3, 2018, violated Rules 8.2(a) and MRPC, and the Court?s March 27, 2018, probation order. SECOND COUNT Factually Frivolous Defamation Lawsuit 5. On January 8, 2013, respondent took over representation of S.G-R. in a marriage dissolution matter venued in Dakota County District Court. A trial regarding custody, parenting time, and child support issues took place on September 11-12, 2013. During the second day of trial, respondent was arrested in the courtroom for misdemeanor contempt of court for violating Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 4.01 by taking photographs in the courtroom. 6. Missing in Minnesota, LLC operates a website and Twitter account and is authored by Michael Brodkorb and Allison Mann. The website provides information regarding the April 2013 disappearance of children. 7. As indicated above, respondent?s probation conditions required respondent to ?initiate and maintain procedures that ensure thorough inquiry into, and verification of, factual allegations in pleadings and court filings.? 8. On June 18, 2018, respondent filed a complaint for defamation in Ramsey County District Court, individually, and on behalf of the MacDonald Law Firm, LLC, against Mr. Brodkorb, Missing in Minnesota, LLC, and John and Mary Does (the defendants). An amended complaint was filed in the matter on July 24, 2018, after attorney Karlowba Adams Powell assumed representation of respondent and the MacDonald Law Firm, LLC. The pleadings in the amended complaint are identical to the June 18, 2018, complaint filed by respondent. 9. Respondent made three primary allegations in her complaint: that the defendants falsely reported that respondent was a ?person of interest? in the disappearance of children in an article on their website; falsely reported that respondent was convicted of driving under the in?uence in an article on their website; and repeatedly published a photo of respondent "as if a mugshot? in articles on their website and on their Twitter account. 10. On March 1, 2019, the Ramsey County District Court issued an order denying respondent?s motion for default judgment and granting the defendants? motion for summary judgment. The court found there were no issues of material fact precluding judgment for the defendants on the basis of truth or absence of malice as a defense. 11. The court found there was insufficient evidence presented to determine whether respondent was in fact a ?person of interest? in the disappearance of children, but concluded that ?Brodkorb reasonably believed MacDonald was a ?person of interest? based on his review of published news accounts in the Star Tribune and his contact with the Lakeville police.? During the proceedings, respondent did not dispute the fact that the Star Tribune published an article on April 29, 2015, stating that a Lakeville police detective had identified her as a "person of interest? in the disappearance of children. 12. Respondent alleged in her complaint that February 16, 2016, [defendants] falsely reported in a tweet that Ms. MacDonald had a DUI conviction, and that it was upheld by the Court of Appeals. In fact, Ms. MacDonald had been acquitted of The court held respondent provided no evidence of the defendants? purported tweet from February 16, 2016. The court reviewed evidence that on May 18, 2016, the defendants published an article at missinginminnesota.com in which they accurately described respondent?s April 2013 arrest for driving under the influence: 5 After MacDonald was endorsed [in 2014], news broke out that she was facing criminal charges for suspicion of drunk driving and resisting arrest. >9 >9 3? In September 2014, MacDonald was found not guilty of drunk driving, but was found guilty of refusing to submit to breath testing, obstructing legal process, and speeding. Id. The court concluded there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding the truth of the defendants? statements regarding respondent?s defamation claim. 13. Respondent alleged in her complaint that on or about January 5, 2017, and June 5, 2018, the defendants posted an article and tweet which included a photograph of respondent ?as if a mugshot.? Respondent asserted the image is ?not a mugshot? and provided an affidavit in which she claims the image is a screen shot from family court hearing taken from a security video at the Dakota County Courthouse. It is undisputed, however, that the photograph in question is an actual booking photo taken by the Dakota County Sheriff?s Office in connection with respondent?s September 12, 2013, arrest for contempt of court during family court hearing. Respondent previously acknowledged the existence of the Dakota County Sheriff?s Office booking photo of herself during a deposition on October 20, 2016. The court also noted that the defendants never referred to the image as a ?mugshot? or booking photo, nor was there any indication in the photograph or underlying caption that respondent had been arrested or booked. 14. On February 24, 2020, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court?s summary judgment decision dismissing all defamation claims ?because no material-?fact issues exist, MacDonald was a public figure, and defamation by implication is not actionable here.? 15. Respondent?s conduct in filing a frivolous defamation lawsuit against the defendants, which lacked a basis in fact, particularly given respondent?s probation requirement to ensure factual accuracy, violated Rules 1.1, 3.1, and MRPC, and the Court?s March 27, 2018, probation order. 6 16. Respondent?s conduct in falsely stating in her defamation complaint that the photograph defendants posted of her on or about January 5, 2017, and June 5, 2018, was not a ?mugshot,? when in fact respondent knew it was a booking photo from the Dakota County Sheriff?s Office, violated Rules and 8.4(c) and MRPC, and the Court?s March 27, 2018, probation order. THIRD COUNT Unreasonable Fees and Fee-Splitting Issues 17. On June 5, 2018, Richard Potvin entered into a retainer agreement with respondent and another attorney, who is not in the same firm as respondent. For a ?at fee of $500, respondent and the other attorney agreed to review the data Mr. Potvin provided for a potential personal injury case. 18. Of the $500 flat fee, respondent paid the other attorney $200 for two hours of work performed by the other attorney on the matter. 19. The retainer agreement did not inform Mr. Potvin of the share each lawyer was to receive. There was no other writing that indicated the share of the retainer to be received by each party. Mr. Potvin never agreed to the fee-sharing arrangement, in writing, as required by Rule MRPC. 20. Although the retainer agreement states the total flat fee for representation is $500, and does not mention any additional fees, respondent charged Mr. Potvin an ?Administration Fee to open file? of $50 and an additional $50 fee to ?update? the file. 21. On July 12, 2018, Mr. Potvin asked respondent for a copy of his retainer agreement. Respondent refused to provide Mr. Potvin a copy of the retainer agreement unless he paid the $50 fee to update his file. Mr. Potvin paid the additional fee on July 16, 2018, but did not receive a copy of the retainer agreement until August 9, 2018. 22. Respondent?s conduct in charging file administration and updating fees not agreed to by her client, in addition to a ?at fee for her services, violated Rule 1.5(a) and MRPC, and the Court?s March 27, 2018, probation order. 23. Respondent?s conduct in failing to obtain Mr. Potvin?s agreement, confirmed in writing, of the fee-sharing arrangement, including the share of fees each attorney would receive from the fee?sharing arrangement, violated Rule MRPC, and the Court?s March 27, 2018, probation order. 24. Respondent?s conduct in failing to provide Mr. Potvin with a copy of his retainer agreement upon request, absent advance payment of a fee, violated Rules and MRPC, and the Court?s March 27, 2018, probation order. WHEREFORE, the Director respectfully prays for an order of this Court revoking respondent?s probation, suspending respondent?s license to practice law or imposing otherwise appropriate discipline, awarding costs and disbursements pursuant to the Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility, and for such other, further or different Armies SUSAN M. HUMISTON DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF LAWYERS PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY Attorney No. 0254289 1500 Landmark Towers 345 St. Peter Street St. Paul, MN 551024218 (651) 296?3952 relief as may be just and proper. Dated: ?lm ~10 .2020. and BM?gi, ,1 KESHINI RATNAYAKE SENIOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR Attorney No. 0386518 . STATE or MINNESOTA 1N SUPREME COURT Al6-l282 Original Jurisdiction Per Curiam Concurring in part and dissenting in part, McKeig, J. Took no part, Lillehaug, Hudson, and Chutich, Dietzen, Christopher J., Acting Justice* In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Michelle Lowney MacDonald, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration Filed: January 17, 2018 No. 01823 70. Of?ce of Appellate Courts Susan M. Humiston, Director, Of?ce of Lawyers Professional Responsibility, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for petitioner. Paul Engh, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for respondent attorney. A 1. An attorney?s good-faith reliance on her client?s representations is not an absolute defense to attorney discipline, nor does the First Amendment immunize an attorney?s false statements impugning the integrity of a judge. 2. A 60?day suspension, followed by 2 years of supervised probation, is the appropriate discipline for an attorney Who failed to competently represent a client; rnade false statements about the integrity of a judge with reckless disregard for the truth; Appointed pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, 10, and Minn. Stat. 2.724, subds. 2?3 (2016). 1 Exhibit 1 improperly used subpoenas; knowingly disobeyed a court rule and failed to follow a scheduling order; and engaged in disruptive courtroom conduct, including behavior resulting in her arrest. 0 I I PER CURIAM. The Director of the Of?ce of Lawyers Professional Responsibility ?led a petition for disciplinary action against respondent Michelle Lowney MacDonald alleging various acts of professional misconduct. After MacDonald responded to the allegations, we appointed a referee, who held a hearing and determined that MacDonald?s conduct violated numerous provisions of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct. The referee recommended that we impose a 60?day suspension followed by 2 years of probation, and that we require MacDonald to undergo a mental-health evaluation. We conclude that the referee?s ?ndings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous and that a 60-day suspension followed by 2 years of supervised probation is the appropriate discipline for MacDonald?s misconduct. We decline, however, to impose a mental?health evaluation as a condition of MacDonald?s probation. FACTS MacDonald was admitted to practice law in Minnesota in 1987. Her primary area of practice is family law. Her only prior discipline was a private admonition in 2012 for trust-account Violations and failing to cooperate with the Director?s investigation. Before addressing MacDonald?s speci?c arguments, we ?rst summarize the referee?s ?ndings of fact and conclusions of law. MacDonald began representing 8G. in 2013, as her fourth attorney of record, in a family-law matter. Among her ?rst actions, MacDonald ?led a motion challenging the constitutionality of Minnesota?s family-law statutes in response to one of the court?s orders. MacDonald?s motion relied exclusively on rendition of the facts?speci?cally, that the order was the result of an ex parte communication between the district judge and opposing counsel. It turns out, however, that the district court entered the order by mutual agreement of the parties? attorneys. Indeed, attorney at the time even drafted the order. The court denied MacDonald?s motion and explained that it was predicated upon an inaccurate factual assumption. As the matter advanced toward trial, MacDonald directed an associate to subpoena three prior attorneys to produce their bills and appear at trial because she believed that their testimony was necessary to lay the foundation for a request for attorney fees. MacDonald never contacted the attorneys, however, to ask whether the bills could be provided without a subpoena, nor did she contact opposing counsel to determine if a stipulation could be reached. Opposing counsel later testi?ed that she would not have stipulated to the amount of the bills. former attorneys moved to quash the subpoenas. The court granted their motions, concluding that MacDonald failed to take reasonable steps to avoid placing an undue burden on the attorneys. See Minn. R. Civ. P. 45.03(a) party or an attorney responsible for the issuance and service of a subpoena shall take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to that subpoena?). MacDonald was personally sanctioned in the amount of $6,202.50 for her conduct. See Minn. R. Civ. P. 45.03(d) (providing for ?reasonable compensation for the time and expense involved in preparing for and giving such testimony or producing such documents?). MacDonald appealed the order, but the court of appeals affirmed, reasoning that MacDonald could have established the amount of attorney fees using alternative means, such as having her client testify to the amount of fees she personally paid to her attorneys. The referee concluded that MacDonald?s use of the subpoenas violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 3.1,1 and During the hearing on the motions to quash, MacDonald interrupted the judge several times. When the judge told her that she was being disruptive, prompting him to call a deputy forward, she replied, ?[t]he rules are that an attorney can?t talk in court?? MacDonald also interrupted the judge dozens of times during other hearings in the case. The referee concluded that MacDonald? disruptive conduct during these hearings violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1 lawyer shall not bring . . . a proceeding . . . unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous . . . Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 3.1. 2 lawyer shall not . . . knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists . . . Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 3 ?In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person . . . Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 4 ?It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice . . . Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 5 lawyer shall not engage in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal.? Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 3 On the day that trial was set to begin, MacDonald filed a civil-rights lawsuit in federal court on behalf against the district judge personally, not in his of?cial capacity. MacDonald then moved for the judge?s recusal from the case based on the pending federal lawsuit against him. The judge denied the motion, at which point MacDonald stated, ?[a]nd you are telling me that you can be impartial in this trial, which you haven?t done since day one.? The referee found that this statement violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct and because it was made with reckless disregard for the truth. Because she had expected the judge to recuse, MacDonald admitted that she was ?not ready to proceed? with the trial. She called only one witness, referred to the proceeding as a ?pretend trial,? and interrupted the court at least half a dozen times. The referee concluded that her lack of preparation violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1,7 and that her repeated interruptions violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 3 Before the official start of the second day of trial, but after the judge had brie?y taken the bench, MacDonald approached the court reporter and accused her of inaccurately recording the prior day?s testimony. MacDonald announced that, if the court reporter was unwilling to accurately record the events at trial, she would do so herself. MacDonald then began taking pictures of the courtroom. Court deputies approached MacDonald and 6 lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge . . . Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 7 lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.? Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1. reminded her that she knew not to take pictures in the courtroom. See Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 4.01 pictures . . . shall be taken in any courtroom . . . during a trial . . . (emphasis added)); Order Regarding Cameras and Other Recording Equipment in Court Facilities (Dakota Cty. Dist. Ct. July 1, 2005) (providing, in a standing district?court order adopted ?pursuant to Rule 4 of the General Rules of Practice,? that pictures . . . shall be taken in any courtroom . . . (emphasis added)). Later that morning, during a recess, the deputies again approached MacDonald and advised her that she would receive a contempt citation for taking photographs in the courtroom. MacDonald initially cooperated with the deputies by accompanying them to a holding area to complete the necessary paperwork, but thereafter refused to give the deputies her full legal name, date of birth, and address. When asked for her name, for example, she replied, ?[y]ou know my name.?8 The deputies tried for approximately 15 minutes to obtain basic biographical information for the citation, but MacDonald refused to cooperate. Eventually, the deputies placed her in custody.9 8 MacDonald?s ?ill legal name is Michelle Lowney MacDonald Shimota. Professionally, however, she uses the name Michelle Lowney MacDonald. 9 Despite MacDonald?s failure to cooperate, the deputies eventually were able to issue the contempt citation and a separate citation for obstruction of legal process. MacDonald spent 30 hours in jail for the offenses. The failure to release MacDonald after issuing the two misdemeanor citations violated Minn. R. Crim. P. 6, but the judge on the criminal case concluded that the detention ?was justified by [MacDonald?s] actions.? See id. (requiring a peace of?cer who issues a citation and acts without a warrant to ?release the defendant? unless one of three conditions is present). The prosecutor decided not to charge her with obstruction of legal process, and the district court dismissed the contempt?of?court citation. MacDonald?s underlying conduct, not the criminal charges, is the basis for our decision today. The deputies asked MacDonald to remove her jewelry, glasses, and shoes, and to submit to a pat-down search. The deputies then placed MacDonald in a holding cell. When the time came for her to return to the courtroom, MacDonald refused to stand up or walk to the courtroom on her own. The deputies therefore placed her in a wheelchair and handcuffed her hands to a belt that they had secured around her waist to bring her to the courtroom. Video footage of the incident shows that the deputies attempted to return MacDonald?s shoes, but she refused to put them on. While MacDonald was in custody, S.G. retrieved MacDonald?s ?les, including her trial materials, and left the courthouse. Once MacDonald returned to the courtroom, the judge reminded her that she had an obligation to her client and repeatedly inquired about how she wished to proceed, including offering her numerous chances to contact her client and retrieve her files. Each time, MacDonald refused to respond or otherwise seek an accommodation. Her involvement in the remainder of the trial was minimal. In fact, MacDonald agrees that she did not competently represent her client, but she testi?ed at the disciplinary hearing that her inadequate representation was due solely to her illegal arrest. She maintains that there was ?nothing [she] could say or do? to correct the situation and that she ?didn?t do anything wrong.? The referee found that MacDonald?s actions, both before and after her arrest, were an effort to produce a mistrial or support an appeal in S.G. ?3 case, or to gather evidence for the federal lawsuit against the judge. The referee concluded that MacDonald?s conduct violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, 3 and The referee also concluded that MacDonald? separate failure to perfect an appeal in .G. ?s case, by neglecting to serve the notice of appeal on the guardian ad litem in a timely fashion, violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1. MacDonald subsequently amended the complaint in the federal lawsuit to include the facts surrounding the photo?and?arrest incident. The complaint alleged that the judge had retaliated against S.G. and MacDonald, compromised the Minnesota Court Information System (MNCIS), ?usurped? case ?les with the assistance of opposing counsel, signed documents that he knew were false, and acted without jurisdiction or legal authorization. The federal district court dismissed all of the claims in the complaint, describing them as ?futile? and noting that ?nothing in the record supports When asked at the disciplinary hearing about the basis for her allegations, MacDonald responded, ?[t]he record speaks for itself.? The referee concluded that MacDonald violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 3.1, and 8.4(d) by making recklessly false allegations against the judge that no reasonable attorney would have made based on the evidence available. In addition to ?ling a federal lawsuit against the district judge in case, MacDonald wrote a letter to the Board on Judicial Standards complaining about the judge? behavior and asserting that he had acted unethically during S.G. ?s trial. In total, she wrote four letters to the Board, each impugning the judge?s integrity and repeating the allegations from the federal lawsuit. She sent copies of these letters to numerous elected of?cials and made similar remarks in letters to other attorneys. The referee concluded that MacDonald? statements were false, made with reckless disregard for the truth, and violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.2(a) and Although the petition for disciplinary action focused primarily on MacDonald?s representation of S.G., it also alleged that MacDonald acted unethically in her representation of .D. in a separate lawsuit. MacDonald, who was third attorney of record, defied the court?s scheduling order by submitting trial exhibits 11 days late and failing to ?le proposed ?ndings of fact and conclusions of law. MacDonald has admitted that she did not fully comply with the court?s scheduling order. The district court scheduled trial for only 2 days, but due in part to MacDonald?s lack of preparation, the trial lasted 9 days, which was, as the court stated, ?virtually unheard of in this kind of case.? During the trial itself, MacDonald repeatedly interrupted the judge, Who ordered MacDonald to discontinue her disruptive behavior. Based in part on MacDonald?s ?disorganization, noncompliance with scheduling orders . . . and poor trial preparation,? the court ordered .D. to personally pay $20,000 in conduct- based attorney fees. At the disciplinary hearing, MacDonald blamed JD. for her lack of preparation and failure to comply with the scheduling order. The referee concluded that MacDonald ?knew or should have known she was responsible for . . . compliance with court scheduling orders? and that her failure to follow the scheduling order violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 3 and The referee further concluded that MacDonald?s recurring disruptions violated Rule 3 Following a 2-day disciplinary hearing, which included the presentation of evidence and testimony, the referee determined that the Director had proven by clear and convincing evidence that MacDonald?s conduct violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, 3.1, and The referee recommended a 60?day suspension followed by 2 years of probation, including a requirement that MacDonald undergo a mental?health evaluation as a condition of her probation. ANALYSIS Because MacDonald ordered a transcript of the attorney-discipline proceedings, ?the referee?s ?ndings of fact and conclusions of law are not binding.? In re Glasser, 831 644, 646 (Minn. 2013). Nonetheless, we give them ?great deference? and ?will uphold them if they have evidentiary support in the record and are not clearly erroneous.? In re Paul, 809 693, 702 (Minn. 2012); see also In re Aiz?ken, 787 152, 15 8 (Minn. 2010) (providing that we ?review the interpretation of the MRPC de novo,? but ?review the application of the MRPC to the facts of the case for clear error?). The referee?s ?ndings and conclusions are clearly erroneous only ?when they leave us with the de?nite and ?rm conviction that a mistake has been made.? Glasser, 831 at 646 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). I. MacDonald ?rst challenges the referee?s factual ?ndings, primarily because she believes that the referee omitted critical facts. Among the facts excluded, according to MacDonald, is that her client had no billing records to provide, making her decision to subpoena past attorneys reasonable, and that opposing counsel in the S.G. matter was also late to court several times. ecause nothing in the record, other than MacD onald?s testimony, supports these allegedly omitted facts, there is no clear error in the referee?s findings. See In re Grigsby, 764 54, 60?61 (Minn. 2009) (holding that it was not clear error for the referee to ?fail[] to make the requested findings? in part because there was ?no documentation in the record?). Moreover, neither fact, even if true, undermines 10 the referee?s ?ndings that MacDonald herself was late to court and acted unreasonably in failing to explore other options before pursuing the subpoenas. MacDonald further challenges the referee?s ?ndings surrounding her arrest and detention, again arguing that the referee missed crucial facts, not the least of which was that the deputies illegally arrested her and that her predicament left her powerless to remedy the situation. Again, we disagree. The record supports the referee?s ?nding that the deputies would not have arrested MacDonald if she had provided basic biographical information, such as her name, date of birth, and address, as they had repeatedly requested. The video of the incident, the trial transcript, and the testimony of the two deputies provide ample support for the referee?s ?ndings surrounding the photo?and?arrest incident. Furthermore, even if the eventual arrest were illegal, MacDonald had a choice about whether to cooperate or escalate the situation. She elected to make things worse by refusing to cooperate with the deputies in even the most perfunctory way, which supports the referee?s overarching ?nding that, had she provided the requested information to the deputies, ?she would [have been] allowed to return to the courtroom.? Finally, MacDonald challenges numerous ?ndings that simply restate the actual words that she used during trial and the disciplinary hearing. MacDonald fails to explain why she believes these ?ndings are erroneous. Even so, we reject MacDonald?s challenges because we have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the of?cial transcripts relied upon by the referee in making these ?ndings. Likewise, the referee did not clearly err in summarizing the allegations from MacDonald?s federal lawsuit because there is ample ?evidentiary support in the record? for each ?nding, including from the amended complaint ll and the federal district court?s order dismissing MacDonald?s lawsuit. Paul, 809 at 702. Accordingly, even if there is some contrary evidence in the record on some of these points, in light of the record as a whole, we cannot conclude that the referee?s ?ndings were clearly erroneous. 11. Having upheld the referee?s ?ndings, we now turn to MacDonald?s challenges to the referee?s conclusions of law. MacDonald challenges nearly every conclusion of law. She speci?cally challenges the referee?s conclusion that she violated both Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 4.01 and a standing district?court order by taking photographs in the courtroom. She also raises two general defenses, good-faith reliance and free?speech immunity, which she says excuse her false statements and ?lings. A. MacDonald?s ?rst legal challenge is to the validity of the Dakota County standing order prohibiting anyone, including attorneys, from taking pictures ?in any courtroom.? Order Regarding Cameras and Other Recording Equipment in Court Facilities (Dakota Cty. Dist. Ct. July 1, 2005). Unlike the General Rule of Practice that bans anyone from taking photographs ?during a trial,? Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 4.01, the standing order is broader and appears to ban an individual from taking photographs at any time. According to MacDonald, these two rules con?ict, and based on our authority to regulate practice Within the district courts, the con?icting standing order must yield to the statewide General Rule of Practice. The con?ict that MacDonald identi?es does not exist, either as a factual or legal 12 matter. Rather than picking one rule over the other, as MacDonald now argues, the referee applied both rules and concluded that ?[t]he Director has proven by clear and convincing evidence that [MacDonald?s] conduct in taking pictures in Violation of Court rule and District Court Order violated Rule 3.4(c) (MRPC) and Rule 8.4(d) (Emphasis added.) Factually, therefore, the referee?s conclusion does not suggest that the local standing order preempts a statewide general rule of practice. Legally, moreover, leaving aside whether it is appropriate to have a local standing order that addresses the same subject as a General Rule of Practice, there is no actual con?ict between the two rules. One rule, General Rule of Practice 4.01, prohibits taking photographs ?in any courtroom . . . during a trial? and the other, the Dakota County standing order, expands a situational prohibition into one of across-the-board applicability. Neither rule, however, affirmatively allowed MacDonald to take photographs in the courtroom, which is the only way that MacDonald could have established an actual con?ict between the two rules. Accordingly, because it is undisputed that MacDonald took photographs in the courtroom, we conclude that the referee did not err in concluding that MacDonald?s conduct violated the Dakota County standing order. 10 B. MacDonald?s second legal challenge, the first of her two general defenses, is her theory that she was ?permitted to believe? and ?act upon? her client?s representations in 1? We need not reach the issue of whether MacDonald?s conduct also violated Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 4.01, which would require us to decide the meaning of the phrase ?during a trial.? It is suf?cient that MacDonald violated the local standing order, and it would make no difference if her conduct also violated another rule. 13 good faith, even if they turned out not to be true. To be sure, an attorney ?has an obligation to present the client?s case with persuasive force? and ?is usually not required to have personal knowledge of matters asserted? in ?pleadings and other documents prepared for litigation.? Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 3.3, cmts. 1, 3. But neither of the aforementioned principles was inconsistent with MacDonald?s duty to ?provide competent representation,? including her obligation to employ the ?knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation? that was ?reasonably necessary.? Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1. Nor did they con?ict with her duty to ensure that ?the allegations and other factual contentions [in her litigation documents] ha[d] evidentiary support.? Minn. R. Civ. P. 1102(0). In fact, contrary to MacDonald?s position, the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct speci?cally recognize an attorney?s obligation to exercise reasonable care before making claims during the course of litigation, emphasizing that competency ?includes inquiry into . . . the factual and legal elements of the problem? and that lawyers need to ?inform themselves about the facts of their clients? positions.? Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1 cint. 5; Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 3.1 cmt. 2. MacDonaid?s claim that ?she was entitled to believe her clien without performing any investigation into her client?s story is therefore untenable under the circumstances. The record establishes that MacDonald had access to records and information that would have undermined the accuracy of account. Yet MacDonald did not use the ?sources and . . . information? available to her to veri?r what S.G. had told her. In re File N0. 1 7] 39, 720 807, 814 (Minn. 2006). The referee was accordingly entitled to conclude, despite MacDonald?s claims of good faith, that a reasonable attorney would not have made 14 serious allegations against a district judge without ?rst verifying her client?s account. In re Graham, 453 313, 322 (Minn. 1990); see also In re Nathan, 671 578, 585 (Minn. 2003) standard for judging statements [under Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.2] is an objective one?). C. MacDonald?s ?nal legal challenge, and the second of her general defenses, is that the First Amendment absolutely immunizes her criticisms of the district judge, including her decision to ?le the federal lawsuit and to write letters disparaging him to the Board on Judicial Standards and to other attorneys and public of?cials. To the extent that MacDonald claims that she had an absolute right to criticize the judge, even in the absence of a reasonable investigation or suf?cient evidence in support of her allegations, MacDonald is wrong. As an of?cer of the court, an attorney does not have an absolute right to make false and disparaging remarks about judges or other attorneys. Rather, attorneys are subject to a modi?ed version of the constitutional standard for defamation claims. The standard, adapted from New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 US. 254 (1964), applies a version of the actual-malice standard from defamation cases, but modi?es it to ask what a ?reasonable attorney . . . would do in the same or similar circumstances.?11 Graham, 453 at 11 MacDonald suggests that our standard from Graham is no longer good law in light of two Supreme Court decisions, Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 US. 1030 (1991), and Snyder 12. Phelps, 562 US. 443 (2011). But neither of these cases involved a challenge to an ethical rule like Minn. R. Prof. Conduct And to the extent that MacDonald relies on In re Yegman, a Ninth Circuit case, Yegman actually supports the Graham standard. Speci?cally, Yegman recognizes that an ?objective standard? applies to whether 15 321w22, 321 n.6. Our modi?ed standard provides adequate protection for attorney speech but also preserves our ability to discipline attorneys who make baseless allegations against judges or other attorneys during the course of litigation. See id. at 321?22. Applying the modi?ed actual-?malice test from Graham, we agree with the referee that MacDonald is not entitled to First Amendment protection for her statements because no reasonable attorney in MacDonald?s shoes would have made such serious allegations about a judge?s integrity and impartiality without substantiating evidence. Our conclusion applies equally to her allegations in the federal lawsuit, in her complaints to the Board on Judicial Standards, and in her correspondence to other attorneys and public of?cials. As we have held, when ?an attorney abuses? her First Amendment rights, ?she is subject to discipline.? Id. at 321. 111. We now turn to the appropriate discipline. The referee recommended that we impose a 60?day suspension followed by 2 years of probation, including requiring MacDonald to undergo a menta1~health evaluation and comply with its recommendations as a condition of her probation. MacDonald maintains that her misconduct does not warrant any discipline, and the Director, for her part, requests that we suspend MacDonald for 90 days. ?Although we place great weight on the referee?s recommended discipline, we retain ultimate responsibility for determining the appropriate sanction.? In re Rebeau, an attorney may be disciplined for recklessly false statements about ?the quali?cations, integrity, or record ofajudge.? 55 F.3d 1430, 1437?38 (9th Cir. 1995). 16 787 168, 173 (Minn. 2010).12 The purpose of attorney discipline ?is not to punish the attorney, but rather to protect the public [and] the judicial system, and to deter future misconduct by the disciplined attorney as well as by other attorneys.? In re Fairbaz'rn, 802 734, 742 (Minn. 2011) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). We consider four factors in determining the appropriate discipline: 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 Nelson, 733 458, 463 (Minn. 2007). Beyond those four factors, we consider the discipline imposed in similar cases and any aggravating or mitigating circumstances that may exist. In re igue, 900 424, 431 (Minn. 2017) A. We ?rst address the four factors, beginning with the nature of MacDonald?s misconduct. Some of MacDonald?s misconduct-?such as making false statements about a judge with reckless disregard for the truth, both in pleadings and elsewhere??involves dishonesty, which ?is signi?cant misconduct.? In re Nwanerz?, 896 518, 525 (Minn. 2017); accord In re Nerf, 839 716, 722 (Minn. 2013) (stating that an 12 The referee concluded that MacDonald?s improper pursuit of subpoenas and failure to perfect her client?s appeal violated the Rules of Professional Conduct, but it is unclear whether the referee considered either type of misconduct in making a recommendation on the appropriate discipline. Regardless, we consider all misconduct in determining the appropriate discipline and we will do so here, including MacDonald?s misuse of subpoenas and failure to perfect an appeal. See In re Overboe, 867 482, 488 (Minn. 2015) (providing that consider [respondent?s] misconduct as a Whole?). 17 attorney?s misconduct, which included making false statements about members of the judiciary, ?warrants a serious disciplinary sanction?). Her other misconduct?including repeatedly disrupting court proceedings and taking photographs in violation of a court rulee?eversteps the ?bounds of proper professional behavior,? which require attorneys to ?comply with court rules and orders, develop a courteous and civil rapport . . . and maintain respect for the bench.? In re orgerson, 870 602, 614 (Minn. 2015) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also In re Getty, 401 668, 671 (Minn. 1987) (stating that discipline was ?mandated? for an attorney who was ?rude, loud and disrespectful? and needed to ?learn to show more restraint and more respect for the judicial system even while disagreeing strongly with it or its decisions?). Cumulatively, MacDonald?s misconduct was committed over the course of more than a year, eliminating the possibility that her violations were merely a ?brief lapse in judgment or a single, isolated incident.? Nwaneri, 896 at 525 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Her misconduct was far?reaching and varying, from making recklessly false statements about a judge to failing to competently represent a client. See orgerson, 870 at 615 (discussing the ?length and variety? of the misconduct). As the Director points out, MacDonald ?violated seven ethics rules through 99 multiple acts in the course of two matters. Because MacDonald committed ?multiple disciplinary rule violations? over more than one matter, the cumulative weight of her misconduct warrants ?severe discipline even when a single act standing alone would not have warranted such discipline.? Nelson, 733 at 464 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). 18 The ?nal two factors??harm to the public and to the legal profession?require us to ?consider the number of clients harmed and . . . their injuries.? chmeri, 896 at 526. Here, MacDonald harmed two clients through incompetent legal representation, both through her failure to perfect an appeal in one of the cases and her lack of preparation for trial in both cases. See In re 896 864, 872 (Minn. 2017) (discussing clients who lost their appeals based on attorney errors). Despite these facts, MacDonald?s position is that she has not harmed the public, claiming that her clients were satis?ed with her performance and that neither filed a malpractice action or ethical complaint against her. Yet, in addition to the harm her clients actually suffered, regardless of their level of satisfaction, MacDonald fails to recognize that ?making false statements to a court harms [both] the public and the legal profession? in and of itself. Nwanerz?, 896 at 526. So too does baselessly attacking the integrity of a judge and repeatedly disrupting court proceedings, the latter of which ?prolong[s] and delay[s] proceedings and caus[es] needless expenditure of judicial . . . resources.? Nett, 839 at 722 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); In re Jensen, 468 541, 546 (Minn. 1991) (?An attorney does not advance the client?s cause . . . by making unfounded allegations about judge[] . . . In sum, MacDonald?s ?unprofessional actions and demeanor re?ect adversely on the bar, and [were] destructive of public confidence in the legal profession.? orgerson, 870 at 616. B. We must also consider any aggravating and mitigating factors. The referee found four aggravating factors and no mitigating factors. We review the referee?s application of 19 law to the facts, including any ?ndings on aggravating and mitigating factors, for clear error. In re Fett, 790 840, 847 (Minn. 2010). First, the referee found that MacDonald?s legal experience was an aggravating factor. She has practiced law since 1987, a career that has spanned over 30 years. We agree that ?[c]ommitting misconduct despite this substantial experience is an aggravating factor.? Tigue, 900 at 432. Second, the referee found three additional aggravating factors based on MacDonald?s decision to blame others rather than accept responsibility for her actions; (2) her ?lack of insight into how her acts affected others?; and (3) her ?continual inability to acknowledge facts found by the courts.? To be sure, MacDonald testi?ed at her disciplinary hearing that she was ?sorry for whatever [she] did.? Nevertheless, there is adequate support in the record that, even if MacDonald expressed remorse at her hearing, she continues to lack insight into how her misconduct has affected others, including the courts and her clients. Accordingly, we conclude that MacDonald?s lack of remorse, lack of insight, and blaming of others are aggravating. Due to the substantial overlap among these factors, however, they give rise to only a single aggravating factor, not three. 13 See In re Ulcmowski, 800 785, 803?04 (Minn. 2011) (considering the ?[?ailure to acknowledge wrongfulness or express remorse,? as well as ?shift[ing] the blame . . . onto others,? to be only one aggravating factor). 13 Even if the dissent were correct that lack of insight, absence of remorse, and projecting blame on others are three separate aggravating factors, despite the substantial overlap in the referee?s description of these factors, our determination of the appropriate discipline would not change. 20 On the issue of mitigation, MacDonald challenges the referee?s failure to ?nd any mitigating factors. MacDonald believes she should receive two, one for her limited disciplinary history and the other for her pro-bono work. As to her disciplinary history, MacDonald has received only a single private admonition over the course of her career for unrelated misconduct. Nevertheless, we have repeatedly held that ?an attorney?s lack of prior disciplinary history is not a mitigating factor, but instead constitutes the absence of an aggravating factor.? Fairbaim, 802 at 746. The other factor MacDonald identi?es is her pro?bono work, which she describes as ?extensive? and culminated in her receipt of the Lawyers pro?bono award on several occasions. It is true that we have recognized that ?extensive pro bone or civil wor might constitute mitigation. In re Wylde, 454 423, 426 n.5 (Minn. 1990). But here, despite claiming that she handled case without charging a fee, she does not dispute the fact that she has an attorney lien against S.G. for $193,190.05. This fact, in addition to the qualitative judgment required of the referee when determining whether pro? bono work is adequately extensive to deserve mitigation, leads us to conclude that the referee did not clearly err in concluding that MacDonald is not entitled to mitigation for her pro?bono work. See In re Albrecht, 779 530, 539 (Minn. 2010). C. Finally, we examine similar cases to ensure the imposition of consistent discipline, igue, 900 at 431, even though we impose discipline on a case?by-case basis, In re Walsh, 872 741, 749 (Minn. 2015) (indicating that we ?tailor the sanction to the speci?c facts of each case?). No case involves the same circumstances and constellation 21 of misconduct as MacDonald?s case, to be sure, but some cases are instructive on the disciplinary options available to us here. In orgerson, perhaps the most analogous case to this one, we disciplined an attorney for ?ma[king] false statements, disobey[ing] a court order, [and] act[ing] belligerently toward a judge and court staf among other misconduct. 870 at 605. Like MacDonald, ?filed various pleadings . . . alleging the judge was biased,? which contained statements that were false or made with reckless disregard for their truth. Id. at 606. also shouted at court employees and ?interrupted judge multiple times? during a hearing. Id. at 608. Finally, like MacDonald, Torgerson had ?substantial experience? practicing law and ?fail[ed] to recognize the wrongfulness of her actions.? Id. at 613. Although the referee recommended a public reprimand, we imposed a 60-?day suspension. Id. at 606, 616. In Graham, another case bearing some similarities to this one, an attorney pursued ?groundless and frivolous? allegations and repeatedly accused a judge of conspiring against his clients. 453 at 3 15, 324?25. As in this case, the attorney made these statements With reckless disregard for the truth and had an ?attitude? that suggested he ?believe[d] in a conspiracy against him and preferred to ?nd fault with others [rather] than himself.? Id. at 325. Although Graham did not include some additional misconduct committed by MacDonald, such as violating court rules, repeatedly disrupting court proceedings, and failing to represent a client competently, we imposed a 60?day suspension. Id. Weighing the nature and extent of MacDonald?s misconduct together with the aggravating factors present here, we conclude that a 60?day suspension followed by 2 years 22 of supervised probation is the appropriate sanction. We are con?dent that a suspension of this length is consistent with our precedent and will adequately protect the public in light of the conditions attached to MacDonald?s probation. Although we have decided to place additional conditions on MacDonald during her probation, we do not accept one condition proposed by the referee. The referee recommended, and the Director agrees, that we order MacDonald to undergo a mental? health evaluation and follow all of its recommendations as a condition of her probation. Not only is there limited precedent for imposing such a condition when the attorney has not placed her mental health at issue in the disciplinary proceeding, but the referee here has made no factual ?ndings that support it. See In re Fuller, 621 460, 470 (Minn. 2001) (concluding that the attorney?s ?possible problem,? which was ?not acknowledged? by the attorney, ?need[ed] to be addressed in the sanction?); cf In re Hanson, 592 130, 130?31 (Minn. 1999) (requiring the attorney to ?af?rmatively show that she is fit to practice law? after ?the referee found that . . . [the attorney] ha[d] been treated for clinical depression and addiction to gambling?). Under these circumstances, we decline to require a mental-health evaluation as a condition of MacDonald?s probation. Accordingly, we order that: 1. Respondent Michelle Lowney MacDonald is suspended from the practice of law for a minimum of 60 days, effective 14 days from the date of this opinion. 2. Respondent shall comply with Rule 26, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR) (requiring notice of suspension to clients, opposing counsel, and 23 tribunals), and shall pay $900 in costs under Rule 24(a), RLPR. 3. Respondent shall be eligible for reinstatement to the practice of law following the expiration of the suspension period provided that, not less than 15 days before the end of the suspension period, respondent ?les with the Clerk of the Appellate Courts and serves upon the Director an af?davit establishing that she is current in continuing? legal-education requirements; has complied with Rules 24 and 26, will be practicing law in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 5(0) below upon reinstatement; and has complied with any other conditions for reinstatement imposed by the court. 4. Within 1 year of the date of this opinion, respondent shall ?le with the Clerk of the Appellate Courts and serve upon the Director proof of her successful completion of the written examination required for admission to the practice of law by the State Board of Law Examiners on the subject of professional responsibility. Failure to timely ?le the required documentation shall result in automatic resuspension, as provided in Rule RLPR. 5. Upon reinstatement to the practice of law, respondent shall be placed on supervised probation for 2 years, subject to the following conditions: Respondent shall cooperate fully with the Director?s Of?ce in its efforts to monitor compliance with this probation. Respondent shall respond to the Director?s correspondence by the due date. Respondent shall provide the Director with a current mailing address and shall immediately notify the Director of any change of address. Respondent shall cooperate with the Director?s investigation of any allegations of unprofessional conduct that may come to the Director?s attention. Upon the Director?s request, respondent shall provide authorization for release of information and documentation to verify compliance with the terms of this probation. Respondent shall abide by the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct. 24 Respondent shall not engage in the solo practice of law, but shall work in a setting where she is in daily contact with, and under the direct supervision of, another Minnesota licensed attorney. The attorney who directly supervises respondent?s work must co-sign all pleadings, briefs, and other court documents that respondent ?les. This attorney may not be an associate who works for respondent?s law ?rm. Any attorney or law ?rm with whom she practices shall be informed of the terms of this probation. In addition to the supervision provided by the attorney referenced in paragraph respondent shall be supervised by a licensed Minnesota attorney, appointed by the Director, to monitor her compliance with the terms of this probation (?probation supervisor?). Respondent shall give the Director the names of four attorneys who have agreed to be nominated as respondent?s probation supervisor within 2 weeks of the date of this opinion. If, after diligent effort, respondent is unable to locate a probation supervisor acceptable to the Director, the Director shall appoint a probation supervisor. Until such probation supervisor has signed a consent to supervise, respondent shall, on the ?rst day of each month, provide the Director with an inventory of client ?les as described in paragraph below. Respondent shall make active client ?les available to the Director upon request. Respondent shall cooperate fully with the probation supervisor and the Director?s efforts to monitor her compliance with this probation. Respondent shall contact the probation supervisor and schedule a minimum of one in-person meeting per calendar quarter. Respondent shall provide the probation supervisor with an inventory of all active client ?les by the ?rst day of each month during the probation. With respect to each active ?le, respondent shall disclose the client name, type of representation, date opened, most recent activity, next anticipated action, and anticipated closing date. Respondent?s probation supervisor shall ?le written reports with the Director quarterly or at such more frequent intervals as the Director may reasonably request. Respondent shall initiate and maintain procedures that ensure thorough inquiry into, and veri?cation of, factual allegations in pleadings and court filings. Respondent shall also initiate and maintain procedures to ensure timely appeals, including service on all required entities. Within 30 days of the date of this opinion, respondent shall provide the Director and the probation supervisor, if any, with a detailed written plan outlining such procedures. Respondent shall take 15 credits in continuing-legal-education coursework in the areas of civil?trial and appellate practice, with at least one course emphasizing 25 each of the following: trial preparation and courtroom decorum. LILLEHAUG, HUDSON, and CHUTICH, ., tools: no part in the consideration or decision of this case. 26 SENT MCKEIG, Justice (concurring in part, dissenting in part). We impose discipline for attorney misconduct ?to protect the public, to protect the judicial system, and to deter future misconduct.? In re Rebeau, 787 168, 173 (Minn. 2010). We have said that ?[t]he public interest is and must be the paramount consideration? and that our ?primary duty . . . must be protection of the public.? In re Hanson, 103 863, 864 (Minn. 1960). The court concludes that a 60-day suspension is adequate to protect the public, the profession, and the administration of justice in this case. I disagree. I conclude that our duty to the public and the administration of justice requires a 6?month suspension, along with a petition for reinstatement, as opposed to an application for reinstatement by af?davit. See Rule 18, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR). I would also require respondent Michelle MacDonald to undergo a mental-health evaluation. Cf In re Jellinger, 728 917, 922.123 (Minn. 2007) (recognizing that to further the goals of ?protect[ing] the public, the courts, and the legal profession,? we must sometimes impose ?rigorous? conditions on reinstatement). Therefore, I respectfully dissent. ANALYSIS I concur with the court?s conclusions in Parts I and II that the referee?s findings and conclusions were not clearly erroneous. I disagree, however, with the court?s decision in Part to impose only a 60-day suspension and 2 years of probation Without requiring a mental?health evaluation. I. There are four underlying bases for my conclusion that more severe discipline is warranted here: (1) the facts establish that MacDonald engaged in an extensive pattern of making false statements and pursuing frivolous claims, disrupting court proceedings, and disregarding court rules and ordersmmisconduct that, in other instances, would result in a suspension; (2) MacDonald?s misconduct is far more serious than that in Torgerson or Graham, where we imposed 60?day suspensions; (3) MacDonald?s misconduct has caused serious harm; and (4) multiple aggravating factors are present. Taking these considerations together, it is clear that a 60?day suspension is inadequate. A. In calculating the appropriate discipline, 1 first look to the nature of MacDonald?s misconduct and the suspensions we have previously imposed for similar misconduct. See In re igue, 900 424, 431 (Minn. 2017). I also look to the cumulative nature of MacDonald?s misconduct, which includes multiple, repeated rule violations. See id. When viewed in this comprehensive light, I can only conclude that a sanction more severe than a 60?day suspension, together with a mental~health evaluation, is necessary to ?il?ll our duty to protect the public. MacDonald violated at least seven separate Rules of Professional Conduct over the course of two different client matters. But the number of violations alone does not adequately re?ect the seriousness of her misconduct. MacDonald?s conduct can be grouped into three broad categories: (1) making false statements about the integrity of a judge and pursuing frivolous claims; (2) disrupting court proceedings and (3) disregarding court rules and orders. First, MacDonald ?led a federal lawsuit against the district judge on behalf of her client S.G., seeking injunctive relief and damages in excess of $55 million for alleged constitutional violations, false imprisonment, battery, and other tort claims. The federal court concluded that these allegations lacked support in the record and were ?futile? under the ?well?settled? doctrine of judicial immunity. The federal lawsuit contained false statements concerning the integrity of the judge that MacDonald made in reckless disregard for their truth. MacDonald also repeatedly made similar false statements concerning the integrity of the district judge in reckless disregard for their truth, both in state court proceedings and in multiple letters to the Board on Judicial Standards (BI S). ?[G]enerally, making false statements is serious misconduct? that warrants ?severe discipline.? In re Grigsby, 815 836, 845 (Minn. 2012). The seriousness of an attorney?s false representations is exacerbated when multiple false statements are made in multiple proceedings before multiple courts. See In re Henge, 764 328, 337?38 (Minn. 2009). This type of misconduct has previously resulted in a 3?month suspension. See, In re z'eso, 396 32, 33-34 (Minn. 1986) (suspending an attorney for ?ling a single lawsuit that was ?groundless,? ?frivolous, [and] vexatious?). When attorneys have ?use[d] convoluted, frivolous pleadings . . . to delay litigation,? we have imposed even lengthier suspensions. In re Murrz'n, 821 195,. 208, 210 (Minn. 2012) (suspending an attorney for 6 months for filing frivolous lawsuits that ?required three courts and nearly 50 defendants to . . . wade through thousands of pages?). Second, on multiple occasions in two separate matters, MacDonald engaged in disruptive conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice, including persistently interrupting the court, disrupting proceedings during the photo?and?arrest incident, and being unprepared for two trials. These efforts not only delayed the administration of justice, resulting in unnecessarily prolonged proceedings, but in the S.G. matter, they also appear to have been a cover for MacDonald?s inadequate preparation for a scheduled trial. Indeed, MacDonald herself conceded that she was not prepared for the start of trial in the S.G. matter. See In re Waite, 782 820, 827 (Minn. 2010) (noting that competent representation requires ?the skills and thoroughness ?reasonably necessary 9? for the representation (quoting Minn. R. Prof. Conduct In In re orgerson, we suspended an attorney for 60 days for similar behavior. See 870 602, 605, 608, 610, 616 (Minn. 2015) (describing how Torgerson had, among other things, ?interrupted $5 ?6 the judge multiple times, acted belligerently toward a judge and court staf and disobeyed a judge?s instructions to remain near the courthouse during jury deliberations and then de?antly refused the judge?s request to return). Third, MacDonald abused the subpoena process in the S.G. matter and violated the scheduling order in the 1D. case. Although we have never speci?cally disciplined an attorney for abusing subpoenas, we have suSpended attorneys for disobeying similar discovery rules and court orders. See, e. g, In re Walsh, 872 741, 743?44 (Minn. 2015) (suspending an attorney for 6 months for failing to timely serve an af?davit of expert review and a response to a motion, among other documents, and ?repeatedly fai1[ing] to comply with deadlines in the court?s scheduling order,? among other misconduct); In re Paul, 809 693, 697?99, 706 (Minn. 2012) (concluding a 4-month suspension was warranted for an attorney who failed to ?le necessary appellate documents and abused the civil rules on intervention); In re 0 ?Brz'en, 809 463?65, 467 (Minn. 2012) (suspending an attorney for 90 days for failing to timely ?le an appellate brief, failing to conduct discovery, and Violating the disciplinary referee?s scheduling order); In re Brehmer, 620 554, 557, 562 (Minn. 2001) (imposing a layear suspension on an attorney who, among other things, ?failed to provide discovery responses,? ?did not comply with the district court?s orders regarding deadlines for providing witness and exhibit lists,? and ?was not prepared for trial?). Each of these violations is independently deserving of signi?cant discipline. See In re Sigler, 512 899, 901 (Minn. 1994) (?Based on our cases, each of respondent?s violations taken alone would warrant discipline . . . Given the sheer number of these separate violations, and that MacDonald repeatedly engaged in several of the violations, a 60?day suspension is inadequate and inconsistent with our precedent. I also recognize that we consider each discipline case individually, but ?we strive for consistency? in our decisions. In re Rooney, 709 263, 268 (Minn. 2006). A 60-day suspension introduces inconsistency into our precedent. The appropriate discipline based on the cumulative impact ofMacDonald?s multiple violations is a suspension of 6 months. Our case law demonstrates that this is well within the range of suspensions for similar misconduct. See, In re Selmer, 866 893, 894 (Minn. 2015) (suspending an attorney for 12 months for ?a pattern of harassing and frivolous litigation? and a failure to ?abide by court orders,? among other misconduct); In re Jensen, 542 627, 628, 633?34 (Minn. 1996) (concluding an 18-month suspension was warranted for an attorney who violated procedural rules and court orders, pursued harassing and frivolous claims, made misrepresentations in court, and ?contributed to . . . protracted litigation [that] resulted in a drain on judicial resources,? although the referee had recommended only a public reprimand); In re Williams, 414 394, 395, 397?98 (Minn. 1987) (imposing a 6-month suspension on an attorney whose repeated misbehavior included ?continually interrupting? others and engaging in ?tactics? intended to ?provoke? others and ?obfuscate the record,? which was prejudicial to the administration of justice). B. The majority relies on two cases?In re orgerson, 870 602 (Minn. 2015), and In re Graham, 453 313 (Minn. 1990)?to support its conclusion that a 60?day suspension is appropriate. I agree that there is some similarity between MacDonald?s misconduct and the misconduct of the attorneys in these cases. MacDonald?s misconduct, however, is more extensive than the misconduct in each of these cases. As a result, orgerson and Graham actually demonstrate that a 60-day suspension is an inadequate sanction. In orgersorz, we suspended an attorney for 60 days for ?ma[l