ST. PAUL, Minn. — The Minnesota Supreme Court has suspended attorney Richard Stephen Langree for 40 days, rejecting his claims of widespread corruption and unethical behavior among those overseeing his disciplinary proceedings. Langree, formerly a public defender in California, has been practicing law in Minnesota since 1993, focusing on family law and child-protection cases.
The suspension arises from Langree’s conduct in a lengthy child custody dispute, originally part of a 2010 divorce case. In 2018, the father involved hired Langree to request changes to child support and custody terms. Over the course of the legal battle, Langree filed numerous motions and appeals, many of which were either untimely or procedurally flawed, contributing significant delays to the resolution of the case.
Langree’s legal maneuvers included submitting at least 25 separate motions in what was described as a “contested, but fairly straightforward custody modification matter.” He also repeatedly appealed to both the Court of Appeals and the Minnesota Supreme to reargue decisions, filing a total of six appeals and a Petition for Review. Furthermore, Langree brought up several issues not initially specified by the district court at scheduled hearings, directly challenging the court of appeals’ rulings.
According to the referee’s findings, this pattern of behavior not only delayed proceedings from 2018 to 2022 but also wasted judicial resources and moved far beyond the acceptable legal tactics, bordering on abuse of the legal system.
Joanna Labastida, senior assistant director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility, sharply criticized Langree’s actions during oral arguments. “Mr. Langree relentlessly pursued a barrage of frivolous motions and appeals, which greatly harmed his clients and squandered valuable judicial resources,” she stated.
The court echoed this sentiment, indicating that the protracted legal proceedings required other judicial officers to redirect their attention from other matters, thereby straining the wider legal system.
Despite representing himself at his own disciplinary hearing, Langree brought the father from the custody case to the proceedings, attempting to use the disciplinary platform to address alleged judicial misconduct in the family court matter. The court, however, viewed this as an attempt to relitigate the already decided family matter rather than address the accusations of misconduct against him.
Langree defended his actions stating that he presented ample evidence that the findings against him were incorrect and maintained that he had never before encountered judges who so consistently disregarded the law.
The court ultimately decided against Langree’s plea, emphasizing his misunderstanding of the disciplinary process and his failure to acknowledge any personal misconduct.
While the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility initially recommended a 60-day suspension with two years of probation, the court opted for the lesser 40-day suspension suggested by the referee but mandated that Langree file a petition for reinstatement, citing ongoing concerns about potential future misconduct.
The case not only underscores the personal consequences of unethical legal conduct but also serves as a reminder of the broader impact such behavior can have on the integrity of and trust in the judicial system. Langree’s insistence on challenging nearly every participant in the original legal proceedings and in his disciplinary battle reflects a troubling stance that could threaten his future in legal practice. The requirement for him to petition for reinstatement suggests the court’s significant concerns about his likelihood of repeating such behavior.