OLPR seeks additional discipline of Northfield lawyer

Listen to this article

A Northfield lawyer on probation after being suspended faces discipline again. David Ludescher faces revocation of probation and possible suspension or other discipline, according to the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility.

Ludescher has been in practice for more than three decades, first admitted to practice in 1988. Before a 2023 suspension, he was admonished twice. In 2023, however, Ludescher was suspended for a minimum of 60 days. The court listed repeatedly raising frivolous arguments, threatening and harassing opposing counsel, and providing incompetent representation as reasons for the discipline.

“In general, Ludescher’s violations of the rules of professional conduct are inherently detrimental to respect for the legal profession and the judicial system as a whole,” the Minnesota Supreme Court concluded.

Effective Feb. 18, 2024, following his suspension, Ludescher was placed on probation. However, he was privately admonished two months later for assisting a party adverse to his client draft guardianship against his client, and then representing that client.

This month, the OLPR filed a petition for revocation of probation and seeking discipline over an incident in 2024 in which a man identified as W.K. entered into a residential lease agreement with tenants before transferring ownership of the Faribault property to his daughter, A.A.

The petition presents the following account of the incident:

A.A. subsequently thought that tenants were causing damage to the property and that there were code provision violations. She also learned that her father did not have a rental license when he rented the property, in violation of a Faribault ordinance.

A.A., who received a six month “provisional license” retained Ludescher to evict the tenants. However, Ludescher did not follow up on this, so he called C.W., the attorney representing tenants, to tell her that A.A. would be evicting the tenants because she did not have a rental license.

C.W. responded that the eviction had no legal basis just because A.A. lacked a rental license. She noted that the eviction, if pursued, would be frivolous, and asked for legal support for Ludescher’s position. After exchanging further emails, C.W. maintained that evictions were only allowed under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 504B, and lack of rental license was not mentioned. She reiterated that pursuit of eviction was frivolous, but Ludescher maintained his position without referring to relevant statutes or case law.

Throughout the next week, C.W. explained to Ludescher that she had notified him five times, in writing, that the eviction attempt was in violation of the law. Later, after reiterating the number of times she had told Ludescher over the phone and in writing that the tenants could not be evicted, she wrote, “It is not my job to do your legal research. But for your benefit, I add the following legal support,” before providing legal citations for her position.

However, Ludescher still filed a form eviction complaint. He listed numerous reasons that the eviction should be granted, including lack of a valid rental license.

C.W. responded by sending Ludescher a letter in which she informed him that she would seek sanctions if the complaint was not withdrawn within 21 days. He did not withdraw, and C.W. filed the motion for sanctions. Ludescher opposed the motion, again failing to cite legal authority for his position that the landlord not having a rental license was grounds for eviction.

RELATED: More discipline stories

In October 2024, the hearing for sanctions was held by the court. “It appears this is the first time respondent became aware that A.A. had, in fact, been issued a provisional license,” the OLPR stated in its petition. Ludescher responded by asking a Faribault city inspector employee whether the provisional license could be withdrawn.

The court granted the motion for sanctions, finding that Ludescher repeatedly was informed that the eviction complaint was frivolous. He withdrew the eviction complaint, but filed a motion for a new trial. Ludescher then argued that because W.K. did not have a valid rental license, the lease was not valid against A.A. There was no legal research to back up this claim.

C.W. asked Ludescher to withdraw the motion, but Ludescher refused. The request for a new trial was denied. “Unfazed, on January 10, 2025, respondent sent a letter to the court requesting it reverse the denial, continuing to argue the incorrect rules and stating a hearing was required on his motion,” the OLPR stated.

The OLPR seeks revocation of probation and suspension or other discipline.

“Respondent’s conduct in filing an eviction action that was not supported by statutory law and against precedent and without a good faith argument for extension of existing law, failing to follow up with his client regarding her receipt of a provisional rental license, and ignoring every opportunity to change course, wasting significant time of opposing counsel, her clients and the courts, leading to sanctions, violated Rules 1.1, 3.1, and 8.4(d), MRPC, and the probation order,” the OLPR asserted.

Ludescher has 20 days to answer the allegations.