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).