In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Larry Martin Jennings, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 202630.

Annotate this Case
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Larry Martin Jennings, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 202630. A04-2371, Supreme Court Order, May 23, 2005.

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN SUPREME COURT

A04-2371

 

 

In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against

Larry Martin Jennings, a Minnesota Attorney,

Registration No. 202630.

 

 

O R D E R

 

 

On January 14, 2005, this court suspended respondent Larry Martin Jennings from the practice of law for a period of 90 days followed by two years of conditional probation.  In re Jennings, 690 N.W.2d 714 (Minn. 2005).

            Respondent has filed an affidavit seeking reinstatement to the practice of law.  The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility has filed an affidavit stating that, to the best of the Director's knowledge, respondent has complied with the conditions for reinstatement, and stating that the Director does not oppose reinstatement.

            Based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein,

            IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, effective immediately, respondent Larry Martin Jennings is reinstated to the practice of law in the State of Minnesota.  Respondent is placed on probation for two years subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the court's January 14, 2005, order.  Respondent shall successfully complete the professional responsibility portion of the bar examination by January 14, 2006.  Respondent shall complete payment of costs according to the terms of the payment agreement entered into with the Director.

            Dated:  May 23, 2005

                                                                                    BY THE COURT:

 

             

                                                                                    Russell A. Anderson

                                                                                    Associate Justice

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.