In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Kassius O. Benson, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0266632. ..., A241567

Benson was a Minnesota lawyer who had prior admonitions for trust-account and fee-communication violations in 2015 and 2019. 1
While operating a criminal-defense firm, Benson repeatedly failed to pay over withheld employment taxes and later pleaded guilty to felony tax evasion under 26 U.S.C. § 7202. 2
Benson owed the IRS over $213,000, used withheld tax money for personal and business expenses, and received probation and restitution. 3
In a separate criminal-defense matter, Benson requested $12,500 from a client's parents for trial expenses, deposited it into his operating account, spent it personally, and delayed full repayment for over two years. 4
A referee found Benson committed intentional misappropriation and felony tax misconduct, identified four aggravating factors and one mitigating factor, and recommended disbarment. 5
The Supreme Court reviewed only the proper discipline and concluded disbarment was warranted. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
What discipline is appropriate for Benson's misconduct? 7	Director sought disbarment for felony tax misconduct and intentional misappropriation.	Benson sought discipline short of disbarment based on mitigation.	Disbarment. 8
Did Benson intentionally misappropriate client funds? 9	Benson took advance funds, failed to trust them, and spent them personally.	Benson claimed some funds were earned or at least debatable trust property.	Yes; intentional misappropriation supported disbarment. 10
Did Benson's tax conviction and related conduct warrant severe discipline? 11	Felony tax misconduct arising from his practice presumptively requires disbarment.	Benson characterized the tax failures as financial mismanagement and asked for leniency.	Yes; felony tax misconduct strongly favored disbarment. 12
Were aggravating factors and lack of remorse properly found? 13	Prior discipline, experience, selfish motive, and lack of remorse aggravated the misconduct.	Benson claimed he was remorseful and his good works should mitigate discipline.	Yes; aggravating factors were supported and remorse was not genuine. 14
Did mitigating professional contributions justify suspension instead of disbarment? 15	Benson's service and mentorship were outweighed by severe misconduct.	Benson argued his public service and pro bono work were substantial mitigation.	No; mitigation did not overcome presumptive disbarment. 16

In re Lieber, 939 N.W.2d 284 (Minn. 2020) (challenges to aggravating and mitigating findings are part of discipline analysis 17)
In re Kaminsky, 999 N.W.2d 866 (Minn. 2024) (referee findings are upheld if supported and not clearly erroneous 18)
In re Nwaneri, 896 N.W.2d 518 (Minn. 2017) (court gives great weight to referee’s recommended discipline 19)
In re Matson, 889 N.W.2d 17 (Minn. 2017) (sets the four-factor discipline framework and case-comparison approach 20)
In re Rebeau, 787 N.W.2d 168 (Minn. 2010) (discipline protects the public, the system, and deters future misconduct 21)
In re Rooney, 709 N.W.2d 263 (Minn. 2006) (intentional misappropriation generally warrants disbarment absent substantial mitigation 22)
In re Perez, 688 N.W.2d 562 (Minn. 2004) (felony convictions are serious attorney misconduct 23)
In re Padden, 10 N.W.3d 291 (Minn. 2024) (misappropriation alone usually warrants disbarment absent substantial mitigation 24)
In re Eskola, 891 N.W.2d 294 (Minn. 2017) (defines intentional misappropriation of client funds 25)
In re McNeilly, 18 N.W.3d 774 (Minn. 2025) (felony convictions, especially arising in practice, presumptively warrant disbarment 26)
In re Moulton, 721 N.W.2d 900 (Minn. 2006) (failure to pay withholding taxes breaches trust and burdens public resources 27)