In re Disciplinary Action Against Letourneau

Citations: 792 N.W.2d 444; 2011 Minn. LEXIS 4; 2011 WL 13764Docket: No. A09-1861

Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota; January 4, 2011; Minnesota; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility (OLPR) filed a petition for discipline against Dennis R. Letourneau in September 2009, citing multiple violations, including client neglect, poor communication, lack of client approval on claims, and failure to cooperate with the investigation. Following a hearing, a referee found Letourneau had committed these violations and recommended his indefinite suspension from legal practice with a one-year ban on reinstatement. The court upheld the referee's findings, confirming Letourneau's suspension.

Letourneau, admitted to practice in Minnesota since 1970 and primarily focused on personal injury law, has a history of disciplinary issues: he was admonished in 2001 for financial assistance to a client and non-cooperation, placed on probation in 2003 for a client loan and non-cooperation, and publicly reprimanded in 2006 for client neglect and lack of communication.

A specific case involved clients Frederick and Carol Ennenga, who hired Letourneau in 1999 after a pharmacy error led to severe health consequences for Frederick. Letourneau failed to initiate legal action until the last day allowed by the statute of limitations in 2003, and did not serve all defendants timely, missing the statute of limitations for some. Additionally, Kmart, the pharmacy involved, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which automatically stayed collection actions, including those by Letourneau. Despite being informed of the bankruptcy, Letourneau filed a proof of claim after the deadline and did not pursue actions in bankruptcy court, citing a desire to avoid a low settlement for his clients. He also failed to respond timely to Kmart's motion to dismiss the Ennengas' lawsuit.

The court denied Letourneau the opportunity to present oral argument and granted Kmart’s motion to dismiss all claims against it, citing several reasons: Mary Geronime was not a pharmacist, Heidi Scheppmann was not employed by Kmart when the incorrect medication was dispensed, Elizabeth Geer was not properly served, and bankruptcy proceedings barred the lawsuit against Kmart. The court noted Letourneau's failure to meet discovery and scheduling deadlines, including delays in forwarding Kmart’s discovery requests and late responses to his own. He also did not execute an agreed stipulation to dismiss Elizabeth Geer despite previously consenting to it. As a result of these failures, the court awarded Kmart $600 in attorney fees.

Following his termination by the Ennengas in 2008, they filed a malpractice suit against Letourneau, which was settled in 2010. Letourneau was subsequently investigated by the OLPR after the Ennengas complained. He failed to respond timely to requests for information, leading to warnings of noncooperation. Letourneau’s responses were delayed multiple times until he eventually complied during pre-hearing discovery. During disciplinary proceedings, a referee found that Letourneau had repeatedly failed to communicate critical case information to his clients, including the implications of Kmart’s bankruptcy on their claim, the status of their case, and important deadlines. He did not inform them about the lack of service on Elizabeth Geer before the statute of limitations expired and made decisions without their consent, including agreeing to dismiss Geer and relinquishing their right to appeal in exchange for Kmart waiving its awarded attorney fees. Additionally, he failed to notify the Ennengas about a hearing regarding the motion to dismiss their case.

Letourneau was found to have violated multiple Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct due to his inadequate legal representation of clients regarding their litigation against Kmart. Specific violations included: failing to timely serve a co-defendant, not explaining the implications of Kmart’s bankruptcy, dismissing a party without client consultation, and neglecting to respond to discovery requests. He also did not pursue alternative dispute resolution and failed to cooperate with the Director’s investigation. Letourneau contested these findings, arguing that they were unsupported by clear evidence and that his conduct was protected by the doctrine of judgmental immunity. He claimed that his actions were strategic and not negligent, emphasizing his attempts to maximize recovery for his clients. However, the referee credited the clients' testimony over his, indicating a consistent lack of communication, missed deadlines, and failure to preserve claims. The referee's findings were upheld based on the clear and convincing evidence standard, and the deference given to credibility determinations in legal reviews. Letourneau's argument regarding cooperation with the Director’s investigation was also dismissed, as it was determined he had not complied sufficiently.

Letourneau did not respond in writing to the Director's last request for documents until the discovery phase of the disciplinary process had commenced. The referee found that Letourneau failed to cooperate with the investigation and did not timely respond to discovery requests, conclusions deemed not clearly erroneous upon review. The referee recommended an indefinite suspension from practicing law, with eligibility for reinstatement after one year, contingent upon Letourneau obtaining professional help for his deadline issues. Letourneau contends that this recommended discipline is excessive.

The supreme court retains ultimate authority to determine the appropriateness and nature of disciplinary actions, with the purpose of sanctions being to protect the public, the judicial system, and to deter future misconduct. Four factors guide the determination of the appropriate sanction: the nature of misconduct, cumulative violations, public harm, and harm to the legal profession. Both aggravating and mitigating circumstances are considered.

Letourneau's misconduct included incompetent representation, neglect, failure to communicate with clients, lack of client approval for foregoing claims, and insufficient cooperation with the investigation. Indefinite suspension is typical for repeated neglect without mitigating circumstances. Letourneau's failure to cooperate violated professional conduct rules, and even though less severe sanctions have been applied to late responders, Letourneau’s delayed response is an aggravating factor. Misconduct during probation periods typically warrants more serious sanctions, especially when similar to previously disciplined conduct.

Letourneau has a history of disciplinary action for failure to cooperate and client neglect, having received a public reprimand and one year of supervised probation previously. The harm to clients, specifically the Ennengas, was significant, as they had a strong case against Kmart for providing the wrong medication, resulting in serious physical harm to Mr. Ennenga. Despite the strong liability case, the Ennengas received only a minor malpractice settlement. Overall, client neglect undermines public confidence in the legal profession, impacting the public, the legal field, and the justice system.

Letourneau's actions negatively impacted the legal system by continuing a district court case despite its clear unsustainability against the defendants and by not engaging in mediation, thereby overburdening an already strained court system. His lack of cooperation with a disciplinary investigation further weakened the integrity of the legal profession's disciplinary mechanisms. Citing precedents, the referee recommended Letourneau's indefinite suspension with a one-year bar on reinstatement, contingent upon him demonstrating insight into his chronic professional shortcomings and seeking appropriate help. While the recommendation for professional help was not formally adopted as a requirement for reinstatement, the court emphasized the necessity for Letourneau to acknowledge his wrongdoing and show genuine change before he could be considered for reinstatement. The order specified that Letourneau would be suspended for at least one year, must notify relevant parties of his suspension, and was required to pay $900 in costs. Additionally, it detailed the legal context for malpractice claims against healthcare providers, including statutes of limitations and bankruptcy considerations related to Kmart's claims. The excerpt also reiterated the professional conduct standards that require lawyers to provide competent representation, act diligently, and communicate effectively with clients.

A lawyer is obligated to follow a client's decision on settlement matters (Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.2(a)) and must promptly inform the client of any decisions requiring informed consent (Rule 1.0(f)). Lawyers are also required to expedite litigation in the client's best interests (Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 3.2) and must not engage in conduct that undermines the justice system (Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(d)). They cannot knowingly violate tribunal obligations, except when asserting that no valid obligation exists (Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 3.4(c)), and must respond to lawful information requests during disciplinary matters, subject to confidentiality protections (Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.1(b)). Lawyers under investigation must cooperate with relevant authorities (Rule 25, RLPR).

Letourneau claims a "doctrine of Judgmental Immunity" protects attorneys from liability for honest mistakes, referencing Savings Bank v. Ward, which states that attorneys acting with proper skill and care are not liable. However, he fails to cite Minnesota case law supporting this doctrine in disciplinary matters. The applicable precedent indicates that an attorney acting in good faith is not accountable for mere errors in judgment (Meagher v. Kavli). Nonetheless, Letourneau faces charges for violating Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, related to competent representation, as he allegedly did not demonstrate the necessary skill or care. 

Comparative cases illustrate varying disciplinary actions based on responses to investigations: In re Cartwright resulted in a six-month suspension for non-responsiveness, while In re Erickson led to a 30-day stayed suspension and probation for delayed compliance. In re Stanbury and In re Terrazas resulted in reprimands and probation for similar failures to respond adequately. Letourneau was previously on private probation from April 21, 2003, to April 20, 2005, and under one-year probation from April 13, 2006, to April 12, 2007.