In re Disciplinary Action Against Letourneau, 792 N.W.2d 444

OLPR petitioned for discipline in Sept 2009 alleging neglect, inadequate client communications, failure to obtain client consent before waiving claims, and noncooperation; referee recommended indefinite suspension with no reinstatement for one year.
Letourneau, admitted to Minnesota bar in 1970, focused on personal injury; previously disciplined in 2001 (admonition), 2003 (private probation), and 2006 (public reprimand with one year supervised probation).
In 1999 Ennenga v. Kmart, Letourneau pursued claims against Kmart pharmacy for wrong medication; discovery deadlines were missed and several defendants improperly served; Kmart bankruptcy stayed pre-litigation, complicating recovery.
Letourneau filed a May 2003 proof of claim in bankruptcy, later objected to by bankruptcy court; he did not lift the stay or pursue claims in bankruptcy court for recovery.
The Ennengas were fired in 2008; malpractice suit settled in 2010; OLPR investigation opened September 2008; Letourneau delayed providing requested documents and information.
Referee found multiple failures: did not inform clients of bankruptcy effects, failed to obtain consent before dismissing a defendant, delayed responses to discovery, and did not timely cooperate with the Director’s investigation; penalty recommended was indefinite suspension with limitations on reinstatement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the referee’s findings are clearly erroneous	Letourneau argues findings lack clear evidence.	OLPR contends findings are supported by record credibility.	Findings supported; credibility given to Ennengas; findings not clearly erroneous.
Whether Letourneau committed incompetent representation and neglect	Letourneau failed to communicate, missed deadlines, and did not preserve the claim.	Letourneau claims professional judgment and strategic decisions.	Misconduct proven; incompetent representation and client neglect established.
Whether Letourneau failed to cooperate with the Director’s investigation	Letourneau delayed and inadequately responded to requests.	He eventually provided documents, arguing partial cooperation.	Agreement that cooperation was not timely and not adequate; misconduct established.
Whether indefinite suspension with one year non-reinstatement is appropriate	Aggravated by prior discipline and ongoing pattern of neglect.	Discipline should be less severe; professional help could be required.	Indefinite suspension with no reinstatement for at least one year warranted; additional reinstatement conditions noted.

In re Ruhland, 442 N.W.2d 783 (Minn. 1989) (clear-and-convincing standard for proving misconduct)
In re Moeller, 582 N.W.2d 554 (Minn. 1998) (highly probable truth standard for clear-and-convincing evidence)
In re Westby, 639 N.W.2d 358 (Minn. 2002) (review of referee findings on record; deferential standard)
In re Jensen, 468 N.W.2d 541 (Minn. 1991) (referee findings given great deference)
In re Aitken, 787 N.W.2d 152 (Minn. 2010) (review of missing explicit findings for clear error)
In re Edinger, 700 N.W.2d 462 (Minn. 2005) (discretion in imposing discipline)