Vol. 75, No. 8, August
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 Gary
D. Knudson
The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Gary D. Knudson, 61,
Rhinelander, 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 on May 1, 2002, in accordance with SCR
22.09(3).
The misconduct occurred in two separate client representations. In
the first matter, Knudson failed for more than two years after his
client's divorce to file an approved QDRO with the circuit court,
thereby failing to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation
consistent with his client's interests, contrary to SCR 20:3.2. In the
second matter, Knudson represented an automobile rental agency regarding
damage to one of its vehicles. He failed to perform any legal services
regarding the rental agency's claim other than a review of the initial
materials transmitted to him by the agency, thereby failing to act with
reasonable diligence, contrary to SCR 20:1.3. He also failed to respond
to the agency's numerous requests for information regarding the status
of the case, contrary to SCR 20:1.4(a), and failed to timely refund an
unused filing fee of $57, contrary to SCR 20:1.16(d).
In 1999, Knudson received a private reprimand for violations of SCR
20:1.3, 20:1.4(a), and 20:1.15(d).
Public reprimand of Robert T.
Malloy
On May 24, 2002, the Wisconsin Supreme Court publicly reprimanded
Robert T. Malloy, 39, Oconomowoc, for professional misconduct stemming
from his representation of a client in a divorce matter and ordered him
to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding.
A trial court granted Malloy's client's divorce in August 1994. As
the attorney for the moving party, Malloy was to draft and file findings
of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment within 30 days. Malloy never
filed the documents.
In December 1995 the trial court sent Malloy a letter advising him
that he had failed to file the documents and directing him to file them
within 15 days. Malloy neither filed the documents nor responded to the
court's letter. The client also asked Malloy to file the necessary
documents. Again, he failed to do so. Because of Malloy's failure to
file the documents, the client was unable to file a contempt motion
against her ex-husband for failure to pay child support that had been
ordered at the final divorce hearing.
In 1997 the client consulted with another attorney about filing the
necessary documents to finalize her divorce. The lawyer made several
attempts to communicate with Malloy about obtaining the client's file,
but Malloy failed to return his telephone calls and failed to provide
him with the file. In May 1997 the attorney wrote to the trial court to
advise the court of the difficulty that he was having in obtaining the
file from Malloy. The attorney sent Malloy a copy of the letter, but
Malloy never responded. In August 1997 Malloy advised the Board of
Attorneys Professional Responsibility (BAPR) (now the Office of Lawyer
Regulation) that he was sending the file to the client's new attorney,
but he never forwarded the file.
Ultimately, in order to finalize her divorce, the client ordered and
paid for the transcript of the August 1994 divorce hearing. After
obtaining the transcript, she then filed pro se findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and judgment in February 1998, three-and-a-half
years after the court had granted her divorce.
By failing to file the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
judgment for more than three years after the final divorce hearing,
Malloy failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in
violation of SCR 20:1.3. Further, by failing to return the legal file to
the client despite her and her attorney's requests, Malloy failed to
surrender papers and property to which a client was entitled, in
violation of SCR 20:1.16(d).
Malloy has been disciplined for prior misconduct. In 1994 Malloy
consented to imposition by BAPR of a public reprimand. In 1997 the
Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended Malloy's license for one year. Later
in 1997, the court imposed a separate three-month license suspension,
consecutive to the one-year suspension. In September 2001 the court
denied Malloy's reinstatement petition.
Disciplinary proceeding against Robert J.
Urban
On June 20, 2002, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law
license of Robert J. Urban, 67, Milwaukee, for 15 months, commencing
July 25, 2002, and ordered that he pay the costs of the disciplinary
proceeding. The suspension was based upon Urban's conduct as attorney
and personal representative for an estate.
Urban previously had been suspended for six months, commencing in
April 1998, for misconduct that included neglecting that same estate and
making misrepresentations to the probate court regarding the cause of
the delay. Urban acted as the estate's personal representative before,
during, and after his suspension. Following his reinstatement, he
resumed the representation. In 1990 Urban had remitted a $210,000 tax
tender to the IRS regarding this estate, which ultimately was determined
to be an overpayment of between $84,000 and $100,232. He then failed to
file a tax return for more than six years. Since refunds must be
requested within three years of a tender, the delay in requesting this
refund resulted in the loss of a substantial federal tax refund owed to
this estate, and gave rise to a malpractice claim against Urban. Despite
the estate's claim against him, Urban continued the representation and
failed to disclose this conflict to the estate's sole beneficiary or to
the probate court [SCR 20:1.7(b)]. He then failed to withdraw, despite
the fact that his ongoing representation resulted in a continuing
violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct [SCR 20:1.16(a)(1)].
In addition, between January 2000 and September 2001, Urban appeared
at nine order to show cause hearings in the estate and misrepresented to
the court that he was awaiting a tax refund from the IRS and would close
the estate as soon as he received it, although the IRS previously had
informed him that no refund would be made [SCR 20:3.3(b)]. Furthermore,
he repeatedly misled the court regarding the status of negotiations with
the IRS, thereby engaging in conduct involving dishonesty or deceit [SCR
20:8.4(c)].
Finally, as a condition of reinstatement following the six-month
suspension, Urban was required to provide BAPR with quarterly reports
regarding the status of the probate matters that he was handling and
with information regarding his handling of trust and estate accounts. He
failed to list the estate in response to BAPR's request for a "list of
all probate matters that (he had) pending in any court." He also failed
to respond to the OLR's inquiry as to whether an order to show cause had
been issued in another estate. Furthermore, in his quarterly reports to
BAPR/OLR, Urban repeatedly asserted that he was not handling funds
relating to probate matters and that the personal representatives of the
various estates were handling such funds. However, he failed to disclose
that he was the personal representative for two of those estates and
controlled the checking accounts for those estates. Urban thereby
knowingly failed to respond to lawful demands for information from a
disciplinary authority [SCR 20:8.1(b)] and engaged in conduct involving
dishonesty or deceit [SCR 20:8.4(c)].
The court found that Urban's conduct was mitigated to some extent by
his payment of $88,000 to the estate's sole heir and his signing a
promissory note agreeing to pay an additional $12,000 to the heir by
Dec. 31, 2003. The court conditioned Urban's reinstatement upon his
satisfaction of that promissory note.
Wisconsin Lawyer
