OPINION
The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility (Director) filed two petitions for disciplinary action against respondent Tucker Joseph Hummel. In these petitions, the Director alleges that Hummel intentionally misappropriated client funds, failed to maintain required trust account books and records, made false statements to the Director, and failed to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation. We referred the matter to a referee. The referee found that Hummel committed the professional misconduct alleged in the petitions and recommended disbarment as the appropriate discipline. Because of the referee’s recommendation, we temporarily suspended Hummel from the practice of law pending final resolution of this matter. See Rule 16(e), Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR). Based on the professional misconduct that Hummel committed, we conclude that disbarment is the аppropriate sanction.
I.
The misconduct in this case falls into three general categories: intentional misappropriation of client funds, trust account violations, and misrepresentation to and failure to coopеrate with the Director. We discuss the referee’s findings and conclusions with respect to each of these categories in turn.
Misappropriation. Hummel represented G.R. in her capacity as personal representative of her mother’s estate. On April 4, 2011, Hummel received a check for $10,794.04 on G.R.’s behalf. The check represented the proceeds from the sale of G.R.’s mother’s house and was an asset of her mother’s estate, in which G.R.’s brother held a partial interest. Hummel deposited the check in his client trust account. On nine separate occasions between April 15 and April 22, 2011, Hummel misappropriated more than $10,000 of G.R.’s funds by initiating transfers and writing checks to himself from the trust account. Hum-mel also failed to respond to G.R.’s numerous attempts to contact him regarding the distribution of her mother’s estate. The referee found that Hummel’s misappropriation of G.R.’s funds and failure to communicate with G.R. violated Rules 1.4
Trust Account Violations. Hummel’s client trust account was overdrawn on January 20, 2011. The bank rеported the overdraft to the Director, and the Director wrote to Hummel requesting an explanation for the overdraft and copies of related trust account books and records. Hummel provided the Director with client ledgers and trust account statements that revealed shortages in Hummel’s trust account for the period between November 17, 2010, and February 17, 2011. The Director notified Hummel of the shortages. Hummel denied that the account was short, but he was unable either tо explain the shortages or to produce accurate trust account books and records.
While investigating the January 20, 2011 overdraft, the Director received notice that Hummel’s trust account was overdrawn a second time on Aрril 22, 2011. The referee found that Hummel’s failure to maintain required trust account books and records violated Rules 1.15(c)(3)
Misrepresentation to and Failure to Cooperate with the Director. After the Director requested Hummel’s explanation for the second trust account overdraft, Hum-mel wrote a letter to the Director, stating in part:
I just cannot provide the information you are requesting as my books are messed up due to the loss of data as explained, and frankly beсause I just really don’t have a good handle on the accounting program I am using. With that I again want to stress the issues I have is [sic] 100% related to those issues and not related to abuse of funds.
This statement was false. The second overdraft of Hummel’s trust account was a direct result of his misappropriation of G.R.’s funds.
Since March 24, 2011, the Director has repeatedly requested documents from Hummel related to the overdrafts of his trust account and G.R.’s complaint. Hum-mel has not provided any оf this information, and he has not responded to any communications related to the disciplinary charges against him since November 2011. Hummel also did not participate in the evidentiary hearing before the referee.
The refereе found that Hummel’s false statement to the Director violated Rules 8.1(a)
II.
The appropriate discipline to impose for Hummel’s misconduct is the only issue before us. Because neither Hummel nor the Director ordered a transcript of the evidentiary hearing, the referee’s findings of fact and conclusions drаwn from those facts are conclusive. In re Nathanson,
The purpose of disciplinary sanctions is “to prоtect the public, to protect the judicial system, and to deter future misconduct by the disciplined attorney as well as by other attorneys.” In re Rebeau,
We first consider the nature of Hummel’s misconduct. Hummel’s most serious violation involved misappropriation of client funds. “Misappropriation of client funds alone ‘is particularly serious misconduct and usually warrants disbarment absent clear and convincing evidence of substantial mitigating factors.’ ” In re Voss,
Hummel also failed to maintain required trust account books and records, made false statements to the Directоr, and failed to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation. Each of these violations constitutes misconduct that warrants discipline. See, e.g., In re Varriano,
In addition to the nature of the misconduct, we consider the cumulative weight of the disciplinary violations when determining the аppropriate sanction. In re Fairbairn,
When determining appropriаte discipline, we also assess the harm to the public and to the legal profession. Id. at 742. Evaluating the harm to the public and the profession “requires consideration of the number of clients harmed [and] the extent of the clients’ injuries.” In re Coleman,
Finally, we consider any aggravating or mitigating circumstances. In re Lundeen,
Accordingly, we hereby order that:
1. Respondent Tucker Joseph Hummеl is disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Minnesota, effective upon the date of filing of this opinion;
2. Hummel shall comply with Rule 26, RLPR (requiring notice of disbarment to clients, opposing counsel, and tribunals); and
3. Hummel shall pay $900 in costs рursuant to Rule 24, RLPR.
Notes
. Minnesota Rule of Professional Conduct 1.4 requires a lawyer to "keep the client reason
. Minnesota Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(c) provides that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.”
. Minnesota Rule of Professional Conduct 1.15(c)(3) requires а lawyer to "maintain complete records of all funds, securities, and other properties of a client or third person coming into the possession of the lawyer and render appropriate accounts to the client or third person regarding them.”
. Minnesota Rule of Professional Conduct 1.15(h) provides that "[ejvery lawyer engaged in private practice of law shall maintain or cause to be maintained on a current basis books and records sufficient to demonstrate income derived from, and expenses related to, the lawyer's private practice of law, and to establish compliance with [the rules].” Appendix 1 to the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct provides lawyers with guidаnce for maintaining required trust account books and records.
. Minnesota Rule of Professional Conduct 8.1(a) states that a lawyer shall not "knowingly make a false statement of material fact” in connection with a disciplinary investigation.
. Minnеsota Rule of Professional Conduct 8.1(b) provides that a lawyer must not "knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from an admissions or disciplinary authority.”
. Rule 25, RLPR, requires any lawyer who is the subject of a disciplinary investigation to comply with reasonable requests for information from the Director or the Director's staff.
. We sometimes have concluded that the presence of mitigating factors warrants a lesser sanction than disbarment, even in cases involving misapprоpriation of client funds. See, e.g., In re Fairbairn,