On Monday, January 9, 2023, the Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed charges against attorney Richard S. Lee before the State of Minnesota Supreme Court for delaying proceedings.  The case is entitled “In the matter of Richard S. Lee” and was brought by the Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility.

The charges cited Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 3.1, 3.4(c), 4.4(a), 8.4(d), 3.5(h), and 8.4(d). 

The Rules of Professional Conduct can be found here. 

Allegedly, the respondent committed the abovementioned violations by his pattern of practice in repeatedly filing meritless motions, some of which were contrary to the court’s order and untimely asserting claims that lacked factual and legal support and that had no purpose other than to delay and burden the opposing party.

The filing states:

“Respondent’s conduct by delaying a hearing and decision on his motions and his failure to follow the court’s directives about the acceptable submissions for April 8, 2020, administrative hearing caused his client financial harm while also wasting judicial time and resources. This is further demonstrated by the district courť’s order specifically noting that the “motion to set an emergency hearing on the issue of parenting time was essentially the same relief originally requested in [C.H./’s motion for change in custody and parenting time.”

The filing continues:

“On July 20, 2020, the district court filed an order denying the respondenť’s motions in its entirety and specifically cautioned the respondent against “further lengthy unsolicited pleadings as they may be considered to contribute to the length and cost of 21. these proceedings.”

The filing further states:

“Despite the court’s clear warning in July 2020 about respondenť’s unsolicited and burdensome filings-which had already delayed the proceedings and wasted valuable court time and resources-respondent filed an emergency motion to rescind the July 2020 order and reinstate the terms of visitation for C.H. However, July 20, 2020, the order was prompted, at least in part, by respondent’s own motion seeking to rescind an April 2020 ex parte order. Put another way, the district court had already decided the respondent’s motion related to visitation for his client, but the respondent again sought relief on the same substantive issue because the court’s ruling did not favor his client. The district court denied the respondent’s motion via an order issued the same day.”

With all the allegations and factual findings, the Director prays for an order from the Court imposing appropriate discipline, awarding costs and disbursements pursuant to the Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility, and for such other, further, or different relief as may be just and proper.

Langree practices in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He is licensed in Minnesota with license #234229. Mr. Langree’s info can be found on lawyer.com.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.