Sign In
    Wisconsin Lawyer
    August 01, 2002

    Lawyer Discipline

    Wisconsin Lawyer
    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.


Join the conversation! Log in to comment.

News & Pubs Search

-
Format: MM/DD/YYYY