Home ->The State Bar->News ->Wisconsin Lawyer

Wisconsin Lawyer
Vol. 75, No. 3, March 2002

Lawyer Discipline

The Office of Lawyer Regulation (formerly known as the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility), an agency of the Wisconsin Supreme Court and component of the lawyer regulation system, assists the court in carrying out its constitutional responsibility to supervise the practice of law and protect the public from misconduct by persons practicing law in Wisconsin. The Office of Lawyer Regulation has offices located at Suite 315, 110 E. Main St., Madison, WI 53703, and Suite 300, 342 N. Water St., Milwaukee, WI 53202. Toll-free telephone: (877) 315-6941.

Public Reprimand of Thomas J. Fink

The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Thomas J. Fink, 66, Menasha, entered into an agreement for imposition of a public reprimand, pursuant to SCR 22.09(1). A referee appointed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court thereafter approved the agreement, and issued the public reprimand in accordance with SCR 22.09(3).

On or about June 1, 1999, the personal representative for a deceased's estate hired Fink to probate the estate, which consisted of a home, personal possessions within the home, and a single bank account. Fink made proper initial filings in the estate on June 30, 1999, and subsequently did work in connection with the sale of the decedent's home, which was completed by August 1999. Fink asserted that in the latter part of 1999, after the home sale, he had conferences with the personal representative concerning certain bills for which the estate would be liable. As of December 2000, Fink did little if anything else in the matter.
By failing to advance the probate in that period, Fink violated SCR 20:1.3, which requires an attorney to represent a client with reasonable diligence and promptness. Fink also failed to respond to the personal representative's inquiries or otherwise keep her apprised of case status in a manner that complied with SCR 20:1.4(a). Fink also failed to file a required written response to the personal representative's grievance, in violation of former SCR 21.03(4) and 22.07(2), which were in effect prior to Oct. 1, 2000.

In a separate matter, OLR commenced an investigation based on the content of a newspaper article sent to OLR, which pertained to Fink's representation of a criminal defendant in a felony case. The article reported that Fink had been removed from the case after failing to appear at a motion hearing at which both the defendant and the prosecutor indicated they could not achieve contact with Fink. Fink failed to file a required written response with OLR in the matter, contrary to current SCR 21.15(4), 22.001(9)(b), and 22.03(6). Fink, however, subsequently appeared for an investigative interview with OLR staff. In the course of the interview and shortly thereafter, Fink provided information that indicated the possible misconduct described in the newspaper article could not be proven by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence.

Fink previously was publicly reprimanded by the supreme court for misconduct involving violations of SCR 20:1.4(a), 20:1.16(d), and former SCR 21.03(4) and 22.07(2). Disciplinary Proceedings Against Fink, 244 Wis. 2d 518, 628 N.W.2d 362 (2001).

Wisconsin Lawyer