In re Lennington
| Decision Date | 19 January 2022 |
| Docket Number | A21-0254 |
| Citation | 969 N.W.2d 76 |
| Parties | IN RE Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Peter Gilbert LENNINGTON, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0223311. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Susan M. Humiston, Director, Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for petitioner.
Peter Gilbert Lennington, Saint Paul, Minnesota, pro se.
The sole issue before us in this case is the appropriate discipline to impose on attorney Peter Gilbert Lennington. The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed a petition for disciplinary action, followed by an amended and restated supplementary petition, collectively alleging that Lennington violated numerous ethical rules in six matters. Lennington's alleged professional misconduct included misappropriation of client funds in two matters, as well as a pattern of neglect and abandonment of five client matters. The Director also alleged that Lennington committed professional misconduct by holding himself out to practice law while suspended, failing to comply with the terms of the suspension order, and failing to cooperate in four disciplinary investigations. Lennington did not file answers to the petitions. We granted the Director's motion for summary relief, deemed the allegations admitted, and allowed the parties to submit written proposals regarding the discipline to be imposed. Lennington did not file a memorandum or appear at oral argument. The Director asks us to disbar Lennington. We agree that the appropriate discipline is disbarment.
Lennington was admitted to the practice of law in Minnesota in December 1991. Effective October 6, 2020, we suspended Lennington for 6 months for engaging in a pattern of client-related misconduct impacting eight clients. In re Lennington , 948 N.W.2d 685, 685–86 (Minn. 2020) (order). The misconduct at issue involved neglecting client matters, failing to communicate with clients, failing to clarify a fee, failing to deposit advance fee payments and a filing fee into trust, failing to refund or timely refund unearned fees and a filing fee, charging an unreasonable fee, failing to return original documents to clients, and failing to cooperate in disciplinary investigations. Id.
On February 16, 2021, the Director served on Lennington a petition for disciplinary action. Having received and investigated additional complaints, the Director filed an amended and restated supplementary petition for disciplinary action on July 1, 2021. After Lennington did not respond or seek an extension to respond to either petition, we deemed the allegations of the petitions admitted. See Rule 13(b), Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR) ( that if the respondent fails to file a timely answer, "the allegations" in the petition "shall be deemed admitted").
Lennington's misconduct includes six client matters and non-client related misconduct. We summarize the misconduct below.
In December 2018, D.G. hired Lennington to amend his estate plan, which included a revocable trust. D.G. paid Lennington a $6,000 flat fee for the representation. D.G. and Lennington did not sign a written fee agreement. Lennington failed to deposit the fee, which was unearned at the time of his receipt, into a trust account.
In January 2019, a dispute about the trust arose between D.G. and his son. Lennington agreed to represent D.G. in the trust dispute on an hourly basis. The parties reached a mediated settlement agreement, which required D.G. to make certain financial disclosures. Over the next several months, Lennington failed to prepare any disclosures, stopped returning D.G.’s phone calls, and failed to respond to opposing counsel's communications regarding the required disclosures. In July 2020, D.G. terminated the representation.
In September 2018, F.C. and his sister hired Lennington to handle the probate of their father's estate. Lennington e-mailed them an engagement letter that outlined his hourly fees and requested a $3,500 advance fee retainer. F.C. paid Lennington $3,500, the majority of which was unearned at the time of receipt. Lennington deposited the unearned fees into his operating account. Lennington's communication with the siblings was sporadic and included months-long periods of noncommunication until approximately mid-July 2020, when he stopped responding to the siblings altogether. During this time, Lennington failed to timely inform the siblings about an offer to purchase some real estate they inherited from their father. Lennington further failed to take any action after the siblings instructed him to finalize a deal for the sale.
In August 2020, the siblings terminated the representation. They retained new counsel to complete the probate of their father's estate and paid a new retainer. The siblings requested a refund. Lennington declined to make any refund or otherwise account for his fees.
In October 2019, R.C. and T.C. retained Lennington to probate their father's estate. They paid a flat fee of approximately $3,000, split between cash and credit card, and gave Lennington original documents related to the estate. Lennington deposited the advance unearned fee payments into his business account. He provided T.C. with a receipt for the cash portion of the retainer, but she did not countersign it.
Lennington abandoned the matter and failed to respond to numerous communications over the next several months. In June 2020, the siblings retained a new attorney, who informed them that Lennington had never filed a petition for probate. R.C. then e-mailed Lennington, terminating the representation, and requesting a refund and return of the original documents. Lennington took nearly a month to comply, and he did so only after R.C. threatened to file an ethics complaint.
In March 2020, Z.H. retained Lennington to probate his father's estate for a flat fee of $3,500. Z.H. did not sign a written fee agreement. Z.H. also gave Lennington original documents, including a will, death certificate, property records, and tax records.
Lennington deposited the unearned $3,500 into his business account. Shortly thereafter, Lennington stopped communicating with Z.H. and performed no legal work on the matter. Lennington did not provide a status update despite Z.H.’s numerous texts, calls, and e-mails over the course of 4 months.
In January 2021, Z.H. left Lennington a voicemail indicating he was terminating the representation. Z.H. then retained new counsel and incurred additional legal fees. Lennington never initiated the probate process for Z.H.’s father's estate, nor did he refund Z.H. the $3,500 or return any of the original documents.
Lennington drafted a family trust for H.B. and J.B. in 2010 and updated the trust in 2017. After H.B.’s death in 2019, J.B. and his daughter met with Lennington in August 2019 about updating the family trust. The same day, J.B. signed a written fee agreement with Lennington providing for a flat fee of $7,250 and gave Lennington a check for that amount. Lennington told J.B. and his daughter he would bring the trust documents to J.B.’s house for signature upon completion.
Neither J.B. nor his daughter had contact with Lennington after the August 2019 meeting, despite their numerous requests for information. They requested a refund in January 2021, but Lennington did not return the funds. Nor did Lennington ever provide any trust paperwork, draft or otherwise, to J.B. or his daughter.
In September 2006, Lennington completed an estate plan for D.L. and K.L. The estate plan included an irrevocable life insurance trust. The trust instrument required Lennington, acting as trustee, to render an annual accounting to the income beneficiaries of the trust upon written request. Additionally, the trust's financial records and documentation were to be available for inspection by the trust beneficiaries and their representatives.
In November 2020, the couple hired a new attorney to update their estate plan. The next month, the new attorney sent Lennington a letter requesting copies of the couple's estate planning documents. The letter also notified Lennington that he was being removed as trustee and requested an accounting of his activities as trustee along with financial records related to the trust. Lennington did not respond, which violated his statutory obligations as trustee to keep beneficiaries "reasonably informed about the administration of the trust and of the material facts necessary to protect their interests." Minn. Stat. § 501C.0813(a) (2020).
In January 2021, the couple's new attorney again wrote to Lennington requesting the same information. The documents Lennington eventually provided did not include a compliant accounting, which violated Lennington's statutory obligation to keep adequate records of trust administration. See Minn. Stat. § 501C.0810(a) (2020).
Lennington's conduct in these six matters violated numerous rules of professional conduct. His abandonment or neglect of client matters and failure to communicate in the D.G., F.C., R.C./T.C., Z.H., and J.B. matters violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1,1 1.3,2 and 1.4(a)(3)–(4).3 Lennington's failure to convey a sales offer on a material asset of the estate in the F.C. matter violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.4(b).4 Lennington's failure to timely return an unearned fee and original client documents in the R.C./T.C. matter and his failure to return original client documents in the Z.H. matter violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.15(c)(4)5 and 1.16(d).6 Lennington's failure to deposit a flat fee received in advance of legal services into a trust account absent a compliant flat fee agreement in the D.G., F.C., and Z.H. matters violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.15(a)7 and (c)(5).8 In the Z.H. and J.B. matters, Lennington misappropriated his clients’ advance fee payments by taking money, performing no work, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Nickitas
...public discipline, which involved similar past misconduct; his experience as an attorney; and his lack of remorse. See In re Lennington , 969 N.W.2d 76, 84–85 (Minn. 2022) (explaining that a lawyer's disciplinary history is an aggravating factor, especially if prior discipline was for simil......