Private Reprimand Summaries
The Wisconsin Supreme Court allows the Board of Attorneys
Professional Responsibility (BAPR) to publish for educational purposes
in an official State Bar publication a summary of facts and professional
conduct rule violations in matters in which BAPR has imposed private
reprimands. The summaries do not disclose information identifying the
reprimanded attorneys.
The following summaries of selected private reprimands are printed to
help attorneys avoid similar misconduct problems. Some of the summaries
indicate violations of the rules that were in effect prior to Jan. 1,
1988. The current rules proscribe the same types of misconduct.
Failure to Act with Reasonable Diligence and Promptness in
Representing a Client
Violation of SCR 20:1.3
In December 1988 an attorney was retained to probate two estates. In
1990 the attorney was retained to probate a third estate. In the first
estate, for about five-and-a-half years the attorney failed to collect
all of the assets, prepare and file the final account, obtain the
receipts and releases from the heirs or obtain the appropriate tax
closing certificate. In the second estate, the attorney failed over an
eight-year period to complete the final account or obtain waivers from
the heirs as to preparation of the final account and failed to obtain
the necessary receipts and releases from the heirs. In the third estate,
the attorney failed over six years to obtain the waivers and receipts
and releases from the heirs.
BAPR found that the attorney's failure over extended periods of time
to obtain, complete and file the requisite documentation to complete the
estates constituted a failure to act with reasonable diligence and
promptness in representing clients, contrary to SCR 20:1.3. As a
condition of the private reprimand, BAPR directed the attorney to
complete the estates, and the attorney has done so. The attorney had no
prior discipline.
Adverse Party Communication
Violation of SCR 20:4.2
An attorney employed by a state agency was investigating an
individual. That individual was represented by counsel on the matter of
the investigation.
The lawyer employed by the state agency corresponded with the lawyer
for the individual under investigation and sent a copy of the letter
directly to the subject of the investigation, without obtaining the
prior consent of the subject's lawyer and without authorization by law
to do so.
BAPR found that the lawyer communicated about the subject of the
representation with a party whom the lawyer knew to be represented,
without either the consent of the party's counsel or authorization by
law to do so, in violation of SCR 20:4.2. The attorney had no prior
disciplinary history.
Actions Contrary to Supreme Court Decision Regulating Conduct;
Conflict of Interest
Violation of SCR 20:8.4(f) and SCR 20:1.7(b)
An attorney was retained to represent a woman in a divorce. During
the month-long representation, the lawyer made unsolicited physical
advances towards the woman, made repeated unnecessary telephone calls to
the woman at her home in which he made personal comments to her, and
made several unannounced visits to the woman's home during which he
expressed a personal interest in her.
BAPR found that the lawyer's actions violated the standard of conduct
set forth in Disciplinary Proceeding Against Heilprin, 168 Wis. 2d 1,
482 N.W.2d 908 (1992), and Disciplinary Proceeding Against Heilprin, 59
Wis. 2d 312, 207 N.W.2d 878 (1973), contrary to SCR 20:8.4(f). SCR
20:8.4(f) provides that "[i]t is unprofessional misconduct for a lawyer
to violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme court order or supreme
court decision regulating the conduct of lawyers."
BAPR also found that the lawyer's representation of the woman in her
divorce was materially limited by his own interests in establishing an
intimate relationship with her, contrary to SCR 20:1.7(b). The attorney
had no prior disciplinary history.
Neglect in a Post-judgment Divorce Case
Violation of SCR 20:1.3
The attorney's partner initially represented the client, who was the
husband in a divorce case. The divorce judgment was issued in August
1992, and the client was required to pay more than $4,300 per month for
72 months as maintenance. The client, a physician, terminated his
professional employment in June 1993, when he developed a disabling
illness. The client, thereafter, contacted the attorney's partner, and
later the attorney, about modifying his maintenance obligation.
An attorney/client relationship existed between the attorney and the
client as early as February 1994. As of the time the client fired the
attorney in November 1995, however, the attorney had failed to file any
motion on behalf of the client. The client secured new counsel who
promptly filed a motion for relief. The court terminated the client's
maintenance, effective November 1995, and set the client's arrearage at
almost $125,000. More than $95,000 of the arrearage occurred between
February 1994 and November 1995.
BAPR concluded that the attorney's failure to file any motion to
modify maintenance on behalf of the client from early February 1994
until October 1995, which resulted in a significant maintenance
arrearage, constituted a violation of SCR 20:1.3, which requires a
lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a
client. The attorney had no prior disciplinary record. There were some
extenuating circumstances that explained, but did not justify, the
attorney's failure to act. During the period of the attorney's
inactivity, the attorney's law partner was treated for a serious illness
and the other member of the firm abruptly retired.
Neglect, Failure to Communicate and Failure to Cooperate
Violation of SCR 20:1.3, 20:1.4(a), 21.03(4) and
22.07(2)
An attorney was retained by a government agency as its closing agent
regarding two farm mortgages. The attorney failed to prepare the
necessary title opinions and failed to promptly provide his client with
closing documents, even after a grievance was filed. The attorney also
failed to respond to several inquiries and requests from the client and
failed to respond to communications from BAPR and the investigating
committee. The client finally received the requested documents shortly
before BAPR concluded its investigation.
BAPR found that the attorney failed to act with reasonable diligence
and promptness on the client's behalf, contrary to SCR 20:1.3; failed to
respond to a client's reasonable requests for information, contrary to
SCR 20:1.4(a); and failed to cooperate with BAPR's investigation,
contrary to SCR 21.03(4) and 22.07(2). The attorney had no prior
disciplinary history.
Failure to Honor Doctor's Lien
Violation of SCR 20:1.15(b)
An attorney represented a client on a personal injury claim. The
client received treatment from a chiropractor, who was protected by a
doctor's lien, which the attorney signed, and which directed the
attorney to pay the amount owed to the chiropractor out of any proceeds
obtained on the client's behalf. The case settled, the attorney took his
fee from the settlement and, notwithstanding his knowledge of the
doctor's lien, disbursed all remaining funds to his client, having
provided the chiropractor with no notice of the settlement and no
portion of the settlement proceeds, although ample funds were available
to have paid the amount owed to the chiropractor. BAPR concluded that
the attorney violated SCR 20:1.15(b), which required him to provide the
chiropractor with written notice of the settlement and the funds to
which the chiropractor was entitled.
Neglect, Failure to Communicate and to Obtain Written Consent from
Clients with Adverse Interests
Violation of SCR 20:1.3, 20:1.4(a) and 20:1.7(a)
An attorney was retained by a husband and wife to represent both of
them in their joint petition for an uncontested divorce. The attorney
failed to obtain written consent to the dual representation from either
client. After the divorce was granted, the attorney wrote the husband's
employer requesting the employer's form for a Qualified Domestic
Relations Order (QDRO) and enclosing a portion of the parties' final
stipulation that awarded the wife $36,000 from the husband's retirement
plan account. Thereafter, the attorney received a letter from the
personnel manager of the husband's retirement plan with instructions
concerning the plan's procedures for completing and implementing a QDRO
and specifying that certain items omitted from the final stipulation had
to be included in the QDRO to satisfy plan requirements. The attorney
never responded to that letter, nor informed the client-wife of the
issues presented by the uncompleted QDRO.
Subsequently, the client-wife wrote the attorney that she had been
made aware of the QDRO issues by her ex-husband. The wife specifically
asked the attorney to take immediate steps to conclude the matter. The
attorney made no reply until 10 months later, when he submitted a
written response to the client's grievance acknowledging that he had
failed to complete the QDRO in a timely fashion.
BAPR concluded that by representing both parties in a joint petition
for divorce, without obtaining their written consent, the attorney
violated one of the requirements for representing clients with directly
adverse interests, contrary to SCR 20:1.7(a). BAPR further concluded
that by failing to consult with his clients and obtain their consent to
complete the QDRO or, in the alternative, to withdraw, the attorney did
not act with reasonable diligence and promptness, contrary to SCR
20:1.3.
Finally, BAPR determined that by neglecting to inform the client-wife
of the issues that had arisen with regard to the uncompleted QDRO, and
by further failing to respond to her written inquiry, the attorney
failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of her
legal matter and failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for
information, contrary to SCR 20:1.4(a).
Sexually Oriented Conduct Toward a Client
Violation of SCR 20:8.4(f)
While representing a client on a family law matter, a lawyer
repeatedly asked the client about intimate sexual matters and made
sexually suggestive remarks to the client, even though on more than one
occasion the client had asked the lawyer to stop such conduct. BAPR
found that the lawyer had put the lawyer's own interests above those of
the client, contrary to the standard of professional conduct set forth
in Disciplinary Proceeding Against Heilprin, 168 Wis. 2d 1, 482 N.W.2d
908 (1982), and contrary to SCR 20:8.4(f). The lawyer had no prior
discipline.
Failure to Hold Unearned Fees in Trust
Violation of SCR 20:1.15(a) and (d)
An attorney received a $7,500 payment from a client to be applied
towards the attorney's future hourly fees in a criminal representation.
Although the attorney initially deposited this $7,500 into his trust
account, he immediately transferred the funds to his general operating
account. BAPR found that the attorney's failure to hold the money in
trust until such time as the fees had been earned, a statement had been
provided to the client and the client had approved the bill, was in
violation of SCR 20:1.15(a) and (d).
Failure to Fully Inform a Client; Making a False Statement to a
Third Person
Violation of SCR 20:1.4(b) and 20:4.1(a)
In representing an elderly client regarding the sale of her farm to a
relative at less than market value, the attorney took all his
instructions regarding the terms of the sale from the relative and never
discussed the sale, its terms or its implications with his client, even
though he was aware that the transfer potentially threatened the
client's eligibility for Medicaid benefits.
In a related matter, the attorney led opposing counsel to believe
that, pursuant to a court order, a receiver was in place to collect farm
income, when in fact the attorney knew that the receiver was not acting
and that the income continued to be collected by the same party who had
been collecting it prior to the court's order. BAPR found that the
attorney had thereby violated SCR 20:1.4(b) and 20:4.1(a). In issuing a
private reprimand BAPR considered that the attorney had practiced for
more than 40 years without prior discipline and planned to retire from
the practice of law.
Failure to Communicate with Client
Violation of SCR 20:1.4(a)
An attorney represented a plaintiff in a legal malpractice action.
For about nine months, the attorney failed to respond to the client's
numerous telephone calls or otherwise contact the client. Additionally,
the attorney failed to inform the client that his trial had been
adjourned at the defense counsel's request. BAPR found that the attorney
failed to keep the client reasonably informed as to the status of his
case or comply with reasonable requests for information, violating SCR
20:1.4(a). The attorney had no prior discipline.
Neglect; Failure to Account and Communicate
Violation of SCR 20:1.3, 20:1.4(a) and 20:1.15(b)
A simple estate that an attorney was probating remained open after
four-and-a-half years; and for more than three years, the attorney had
failed to provide an accounting of estate funds as requested by the
estate's personal representative and had failed to issue final
distribution checks. The attorney also had filed an incomplete final
accounting with the court and had neglected to pursue a $2,500 refund
check that the estate was entitled to receive.
BAPR ascertained that all estate funds had been properly held by the
attorney in a separate estate account. BAPR concluded that the attorney
had failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness, contrary to
SCR 20:1.3; failed to respond to a client's reasonable requests for
information, contrary to SCR 20:1.4(a); and failed to render a full
accounting of estate funds in response to the client's request, contrary
to SCR 20:1.15(b).
BAPR informed the attorney that he would be privately reprimanded if
he completed probate of the estate, provided the personal representative
with a complete accounting and made final distributions. The attorney
met these conditions and accepted the private reprimand. The attorney
had no prior discipline.
Neglect; Failure to Communicate
Violation of SCR 20:1.3 and SCR 20:1.4(a)
An attorney operated a pro se divorce service that provided pro se
litigants with the legal forms and instructions necessary to obtain a
divorce. The service also advertised that they provided unlimited
consultations with its attorney and paralegal staff. In April 1995 a man
paid the attorney to assist in his uncontested divorce. The man provided
the attorney with his completed financial disclosure statement in late
June or early July, but the attorney did not respond and did not send
the man the next set of instructions or otherwise follow up.
Between July and November 1995 the man repeatedly tried contacting
the attorney. With the exception of one voice mail message in November
1995, the attorney failed to respond to the man's calls. In October 1995
the man sent the attorney a letter indicating that he had been unable to
reach the attorney, and that he had not yet received the next set of
materials. The attorney failed to respond. In November 1995 the man
concluded that the attorney had abandoned the matter and completed the
divorce process with the assistance of the court's clerk.
Although the attorney provided services under the auspices of a pro
se organization, BAPR found that he, nonetheless, owed a duty of
professional responsibility to his clients. BAPR found that by failing
to respond to the man's numerous calls and his letter, the attorney
failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information,
violating SCR 20:1.4(a).
BAPR also found that by failing to provide the man with further
instructions regarding the divorce procedure or otherwise follow up his
case, the attorney failed to act with reasonable diligence and
promptness in representing a client, violating SCR 20:1.3. The attorney
previously had been suspended for 60 days as discipline for unrelated
misconduct.
Neglect; Misrepresentation
Violation of SCR 20:1.3 and 20:8.(c)
In 1993 a man retained an attorney to represent him regarding claims
for Social Security and worker's compensation benefits. After concluding
the Social Security case in 1994, the client periodically called the
attorney regarding the status of his worker's compensation action. The
attorney advised the client that he had filed the client's claim with
the Worker's Compensation Division. In fact, the attorney had not filed
the claim with the Worker's Compensation Division and had failed to
pursue the matter for about two years.
BAPR concluded that, by misrepresenting to his client that he had
filed a worker's compensation application, the attorney engaged in
conduct involving dishonesty or misrepresentation, contrary to SCR
20:8.4(c). BAPR also found that, by failing to pursue the client's
worker's compensation claim for about two years, the attorney failed to
act with reasonable diligence and promptness, violating SCR 20:1.3. The
attorney had received no prior discipline.
Engaging in Conduct Involving Dishonesty or Misrepresentation
Violation of SCR 20:8.4(c)
In 1995 an attorney was retained by a man, who held a power of
attorney for his elderly mother-in-law, to divest the woman's assets so
that she would qualify for Title XIX benefits. The woman's primary asset
was her home. The attorney attempted to divest the woman's assets by
deeding dollar portions of the property to the woman's grandson, the
sole beneficiary in her will. The quit claim deeds purported to have
been signed on various dates between February and September 1995,
gradually deeding portions of the property to the grandson. The attorney
authenticated the man's signature on the deeds as though the deeds were
signed on the respective dates. The deeds, however, all were executed by
the man and authenticated by the attorney on the same date in September
1995. BAPR found that, by backdating the dates of authentication on the
deeds, the attorney engaged in conduct involving dishonesty or
misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c). The attorney had
previously been privately reprimanded for unrelated misconduct.
Failure to Communicate and to Surrender File
Violation of SCR 20:1.4(a) and SCR 20:1.16(d)
A lawyer was appointed to represent a client in a criminal appeal.
The lawyer filed the appeal, but after the appeal was denied the lawyer
failed to notify the client. The lawyer also failed to communicate with
the client about the status of the case despite receiving six letters of
inquiry from various sources, including the Public Defender's
Office.
Successor counsel was appointed to pursue an appeal on the basis of
ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The PD's Office instructed
the lawyer to turn over the file materials to successor counsel.
Successor counsel made several requests for the file materials, but the
lawyer did not respond. Once the grievance was filed the lawyer
eventually turned over the file materials. At that point, five months
had passed since the initial request.
BAPR determined that in failing to notify the client that his appeal
had been denied and in failing to respond to the client's requests for
information, the lawyer violated SCR 20:1.4(a). BAPR also determined
that the lawyer violated SCR 20:1.16(d) by failing to promptly turn over
the client's file materials to successor counsel. In giving the private
reprimand, BAPR noted that the lawyer had a prior private reprimand in
1984 for similar misconduct.
Misrepresentation; Improper Termination
Violation of SCR 20:8.4(c) and 20:1.16(a)(3)
On Feb. 1, 1996, an attorney was retained by a man to file a 28
U.S.C. section 2225 Motion (to vacate a sentence) in federal court on
behalf of the man's son. The man paid the attorney a $1,500 retainer. A
month later, the man's adult daughter contacted the attorney regarding
the status of her brother's motion. The attorney told the daughter that
he had filed the motion four days earlier. In checking with the clerk of
courts, the daughter discovered that no motion had been filed.
In a letter dated March 20, 1996, received by the attorney on March
22, the man terminated the attorney's services and requested the return
of his $1,500 retainer. In a letter to the man dated March 22, 1996, the
day the attorney received the man's letter, the attorney indicated that,
although he was prepared to file the motion, he could not submit "sloppy
and unsubstantiated work." The attorney also acknowledged that his
services were terminated and that the decision to fire him was the man's
prerogative. The attorney did not attempt to contact the man's son. On
March 24, 1996, the attorney, nonetheless, mailed a motion to the court,
which was filed on March 26, 1996. The court rejected the attorney's
motion as he filed it under the improper section.
BAPR found that, by misrepresenting to the man's daughter that he had
filed a motion, the attorney violated SCR 20:8.4(c). BAPR also found
that, by filing the motion after being advised that his services were
terminated, the attorney violated SCR 20:1.16(a)(3).
Wisconsin Lawyer