Petition For Reinstatement Required

The Minnesota Supreme Court has suspended an attorney

A 40-day suspension with a requirement to petition for reinstatement is the appropriate discipline for an attorney who has demonstrated a lack of requisite legal skills, asserted numerous frivolous claims, knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, purposely delayed the judicial proceedings, engaged in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal, and engaged in behavior that was ultimately prejudicial to the administration of justice—and who has shown a likelihood to continue the misconduct in the future.

Requirement of a petition for reinstatement

Langree makes no arguments regarding the measure of discipline recommended by the referee or the Director. He obliquely attempts to contest the referee’s findings of fact by making frivolous motions to both us and to the referee, accusing nearly everyone involved in the underlying family law matter and in these disciplinary proceedings of being corrupt or behaving unethically. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we conclude that the recommended discipline is insufficient to protect the public, protect the legal profession, and deter future misconduct. Accordingly, the appropriate discipline for Langree’s misconduct is a 40-day suspension with a requirement to petition for reinstatement—a condition typically not required for suspensions of fewer than 90 days.

Misconduct

The nature of Langree’s misconduct was serious. Though it only involved a single matter, Langree’s behavior involved numerous frivolous arguments or failures to comply with court rules. “[S]uch an abuse of the litigation process constitutes serious misconduct.” In re Selmer, 866 N.W.2d 893, 900 (Minn. 2015) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Many of Langree’s filings and appeals were untimely, demonstrating a lack of skill, knowledge, thoroughness, and preparation. Langree filed at least 11 untimely motions and made untimely or premature appeals to both the court of appeals and this court over the course of this custody matter. Langree also filed multiple motions that were procedurally deficient and accordingly not considered by the court. Many—if not most—of his motions were also clearly frivolous. In this contested, but fairly straightforward custody modification matter, Langree made at least 25 separate motions, appealed to the court of appeals six times, and submitted a PFR to this court. Many of Langree’s filings “were unsupported by fact and/or law.” Many filings also included requests that had previously been made to and decided by the court, and the court of appeals specifically found that the fact Langree had not prevailed on a single motion was “indicative of the frivolousness of his motions.”

Fitness

Because we are concerned that further misconduct is likely, we conclude that Langree must petition for reinstatement pursuant to Rule 18(a)–(d), RLPR.

(Mike Frisch)