In Re Disciplinary Action Against Hanvik

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the referee’s finding that the respondent was not genuinely remorseful, despite his testimony to the contrary, was supported by the record
• holding that Hanvik did not have a severe psychological disorder when his depression was classified as moderate on a diagnostic scale
• holding the Referee properly found that restitution was not a mitigating factor because Hanvik only made restitution “the day of the hearing” and “after a number of demands and a complaint to the [D]i-rector”
• upholding a referee’s finding that the respondent’s pro bono activity was not a mitigating factor because he did no more pro bono work “than is generally expected of any attorney”
• imposing indefinite suspension due to lack of prior disciplinary history and substantial restitution

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).