|IL||Administrative - Not Authorized to Practice||1986||11/21/2016|
This lawyer was disciplined by a state licensing authority.
Reprimand means an attorney did something wrong but may still practice law. The State gives the lawyer a public reprimand in hopes that he or she will not repeat the behavior. Details of the infraction are made part of the public record.
|Association name||Position name||Duration|
|Green Bay Area Unitarian Universalist Fellowship||Board President/Member||1999 - Present|
|Family Violence Center||Board Member||1994 - 1997|
|St Louis U||N/A||law||1984|
Posted by Kevin oliver
Very very unprofessional.He has a great paralegal daniel.But he just want money a more money and cant tell u whats going on with ur case.received and email from his paralegal the the DA was dropping the owi charge,get to court ask mr langan and he knows nothing,how are u going to represent me and you not communicating with ur paralegal.PLEASE DO NOT WASTE MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by anonymous
Mr. Langan is an honest, ethical attorney and truly listens to the needs of his clients. He is very willing to present different options and fully discuss the possible outcomes. His advice and legal work have been invaluable to me. His staff is very responsive, organized, and available. I would highly recommend Attorney Langan!
Posted by Joan
Very disappointed with this attorney whose handling of our case caused us a tremendous amount of grief and anxiety. As a recent graduate of law school, I was looking forward to working with him and learning from him but this attorney demonstrated how clients should never be treated. After our initial two meetings and he had been paid, Attorney Langan did not initiate any contact with us whatsoever other than to send additional billings and forward docket filings; filings that we had already obtained ourselves. Our case in the Tax Court had been ongoing for sixteen months by the time Langan was hired and entered an appearance in our case. I sent him copies of the paperwork pertinent to the case, including the results of our discovery requests via USPS Certified Mail. He did not acknowledge that he even received them. Not once did he ask us questions about the facts of the case or what had taken place to date. Consequently, he made a number of errors in the facts he presented to the Court in his pleadings. He appeared for us at the Calendar Call in Tax Court and refused to provide us with a copy of the transcript of the hearing saying even though it existed in the docket, “I don’t know why you would want a copy, I already told you about the hearing.” The judge ordered him to file a brief in the case. What he filed was in the form of a motion and didn’t contain any of the necessary elements of a brief. We sent him an e-mail asking why it wasn’t submitted in the proper form. Langan’s response was: “Do you really want me to answer this, or did you just need to rant. I know you graduated from law school, but you are NOT a lawyer.” He also filed a Motion to Supplement the Record; a motion that was stricken from the record in the case. When we asked him for a clarification concerning the judge’s order, his response was, “If I understand this correctly, the Court rules that since you did not sign the Motion to Supplement the Record that it denied the Motion. We can re-submit the Motion if you wish, I would simply add a signature line for you and Gary, then scan in the signed document and re-file it.” I have no idea why he would say this since he obviously is the attorney representing us and we would not be required to sign his motions in order to have them filed. This same motion indicated that an exhibit was attached, but he failed to attach it. This exhibit consisted of a Forensic Document Examiner’s Report that we had paid $1,500.00 for. Also, Langan had signed an agreement promising to pay the examiner for any additional costs out of the funds in our client escrow account. When Langan received additional billings from the examiner, he would forward them onto us expecting us to pay them even though the invoices were made out to him and he was responsible for their payment. After reviewing our case, Langan told us that we had been treated “egregiously” by the settlement officer in the Collection Due Process Hearing. However, in the Reply Brief that he submitted to the Court, he made an unwarranted derogatory comment about our conduct when dealing with the IRS settlement officer. When we asked him what he was referring to, he actually denied making the statement, even though it clearly appears on Page 7 of the brief. His exact words written in an e-mail to us were: “I did not label you as belligerent; in fact, that word does not appear in my Brief.” Finally, we asked him to withdraw from the case and he agreed. However, the Court denied his motion because it was not done in the proper form and did not comply with Tax Court Rule 24(c).We provided him with a copy of a proper withdrawal motion and it was granted by the Court. We did not feel Attorney Langan demonstrated a high level of skill or professionalism; nor did he exemplify the legal profession’s ideals of honest and ethical dealings in order to protect our legitimate interests in our case.
Endorsements from fellow lawyers are an important consideration for many when selecting the right attorney. Be the first to endorse your colleague!
Cash, Check, Credit card