‘Frivolous conduct’ earns divorce attorney suspension

The Minnesota Supreme Court has announced that attorney Richard Stephen Langree is suspended from the practice of law.

Unpersuaded by Langree’s argument that most people involved in the disciplinary proceedings were corrupt or unethical, the court will impose a 40-day suspension.

Langree, who originally worked as a public defender in California, began his legal practice in Minnesota in 1993. He specializes in family law and child-protection matters.

The charge of misconduct stemmed from a child-custody matter that spanned several years. The parents of one child filed for divorce in 2010. Eight years later, the father retained Langree to modify child support and the stipulated child-custody arrangement.

According to the referee, Langree submitted at least 11 untimely motions and made untimely or premature appeals to both the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. Additionally, Langree filed several motions that were procedurally deficient and, therefore, not considered by the court.

Several of Langree’s motions were deemed clearly frivolous. In what the court described as a “contested, but fairly straightforward custody modification matter,” Langree filed at least 25 separate motions, appealed to the court of appeals six times, and submitted a Petition for Review to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

He also submitted materials raising six additional issues beyond those specified by the district court in a scheduled hearing. Langree instructed the district court to ignore the ruling of the court of appeals in these filings. Subsequently, Langree again filed motions regarding issues outside of the scope of the hearing.

Langree also apparently caused significant delays to the matter, which spanned from 2018 till 2022. He filed to have the Guardian ad Litem and almost every judicial officer involved in the matter removed. Additionally, he filed frivolous emergency motions for non-emergency issues.

The referee concluded that Langree violated Rule 1.1, 3.1, 3.4(c), 3.5(h), 4.4(a), and 8.4(d). A minimum 40-day suspension from the practice of law was recommended by the referee.

“Mr. Langree marched relentlessly onward with a barrage of frivolous motions and appeals to the great detriment of his clients and in total disregard to the waste of judicial resources,” Joanna Labastida, senior assistant director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility, stated at oral arguments.

“Langree’s actions harmed the legal system itself because the significant judicial resources expended when the custody case took significantly longer than it should have wasted resources and required other judicial officers to take up the slack,” the court agreed.

Langree, who appeared pro se, brought the father in the child-custody case to oral arguments, pointing to him. “You have the authority to end the judicial misconduct rampant for years on this case,” Langree told the Supreme Court.

“[H]e apparently does not comprehend the disciplinary process, as he is attempting to use these proceedings as an avenue to relitigate the family court matter, rather than acknowledge his misconduct in any capacity,” the court avowed.

In his defense, Langree stated, “This court, based on your own rules, the Code of Judicial Conduct, may not make findings or take actions that are not true. The findings against me are not true. I have given lots of evidence of that.”

However, neither Langree nor the OLPR ordered a transcript of the hearing before the referee, so the factual findings were conclusive. Despite this, Langree maintained, “I’ve never run into a pattern of judges who absolutely will not follow the law before this. You cannot accept findings that say that I filed those motions to delay the case.”

“Langree makes no arguments regarding the measure of discipline recommended by the referee or the Director,” the court wrote. “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.”

“Langree’s frivolous conduct from the family law matter has carried through to the disciplinary matter,” the court concluded.

While the OLPR director recommended a 60-day suspension subject to two years of probation, the court deferred to the referee’s recommendation of a 40-day suspension. However, it did require Langree to file a petition for reinstatement.

The court noted that, typically when attorneys are suspended for 90 days or fewer, they are not required to petition for reinstatement. In Langree’s case, the court concluded that he must petition for reinstatement. “[W]e are concerned that further misconduct is likely,” the court avowed.

“Langree’s behavior during the disciplinary proceedings creates serious doubt that he has accepted or will accept responsibility for his misconduct,” the court concluded. “Rather than address his own misconduct, Langree has continuously focused on the conduct of nearly everyone else involved in the underlying family law matter. His conduct at oral argument is representative of this behavior.”