Supreme Court Digest: July 10, 2024

Civil

Attorney Discipline

Suspension

The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility (OLPR) filed a petition for disciplinary action against respondent Richard Stephen Langree, alleging various and repeated professional misconduct related to a single matter. A referee was appointed and he held an evidentiary hearing. The referee found that in a family law matter, Langree had engaged in a pattern of filing untimely, frivolous, or otherwise improper motions and appeals and that he had intended to disrupt the tribunal and burden the opposing party. The referee further found that some of the professional misconduct Langree engaged in continued through the disciplinary process. The referee found three aggravating factors and one mitigating factor. Based on the findings and conclusions, the referee recommended Langree be suspended from practice for a minimum of 40 days. The Director urged a slightly longer 60-day suspension subject to 2 years of supervised probation.

Langree made no arguments regarding the measure of discipline recommended by the referee or the Director. He obliquely attempted to contest the referee’s findings of fact by making frivolous motions to both the Supreme Court 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.

The Supreme Court held that 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. Suspended.

A23-0047 In re Langree (Original Jurisdiction)

Negligence

Negligent Selection of Contractor

Appellants brought this personal injury action against respondents for negligent selection of an independent contractor. Respondents moved for summary judgment, asserting that Minnesota does not recognize a claim for negligent selection of an independent contractor and that, even if it did, no genuine dispute of material fact existed as to its alleged negligence under that claim. The District Court granted the motion for summary judgment. It concluded that Minnesota recognizes the claim, but that there was no genuine dispute of material fact as to whether respondents failed to exercise reasonable care. In a nonprecedential opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed.

The Supreme Court held that the tort of negligent selection of an independent contractor exists under the common law of Minnesota. On the remaining issue for which review was granted—whether the District Court erred in granting respondents’ motion for summary judgment—the Court was evenly divided. Affirmed.

A22-1796 Alonzo v. Menholt (Court of Appeals)

Orders

Summary Dispositions

Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals

This decision in this matter was affirmed without opinion.

A23-1851 Olson v. Total Specialty Contracting, LLC