II. SUPREME COURT REVIEW OF STIPULATONS
A. The Court Gives "Some Deference" to OLPR
In considering stipulations, the Court has explained that, in addition to giving great deference to referee findings and conclusions, if any, "We also give some deference to the Director's decision to enter into a stipulation for discipline.' In re Olson, 872 N.W.2d 862, 864 (Minn. 2015). We do so because the Director is 'in the best position to weigh the cost and risk of litigation and to determine when a stipulated discipline will best serve the interests of the [Lawyers Professional Responsibility] Board.' In re Berg, 741 N.W.2d 600, 606 (Minn. 2007)." In re Riehm, 883 N.W.2d 223, 233 (Minn. 2016). In addition, the Court has stated, "The Director has explained that the recommended discipline was agreed to because of concerns involving problems of proof. In light of the unique circumstances of this case, we approve the recommended disposition." In re Clark, 848 N.W.2d 236, 236 (Minn. 2014).
B. Supreme Court Procedures
Most often, the Court adopts the stipulation and imposes the recommended discipline. Beginning early in the current century, however, the Court has increasingly ordered OLPR, and sometimes also respondent, to file memoranda, explaining how the recommendation fits the facts and precedents. These orders often ask why the Court should regard...
