Professional Discipline

The Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility, an arm of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, assists the court in discharging its exclusive constitutional responsibility to supervise the practice of law in this state and to protect the public from acts of professional misconduct by attorneys licensed to practice in Wisconsin. The board is composed of eight lawyers and four nonlawyer members, and its offices are located at Room 315, 110 E. Main St., Madison, WI 53703, and Room 102, 611 N. Broadway, Milwaukee, WI 53202.

Public Reprimand of Martin J. Brennan

The Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (BAPR) publicly reprimanded attorney Martin J. Brennan, Greenfield, as discipline for professional misconduct. Brennan represented a client regarding a personal injury claim that settled in May 1996. He withheld $1,077.01 of the $4,000 settlement to cover the client's outstanding medical bills. Despite repeated requests from the doctor, Brennan did not pay the bills until June 1997. While Brennan did not issue a letter of protection to the doctor, he did advise the client that he would pay those bills from the proceeds of the settlement and withheld funds from the settlement for that very purpose. Brennan failed to provide the client with a written settlement statement upon conclusion of the case. He did, however, prior to settlement, review with the client the medical bills to be paid out of the settlement proceeds and explained that he would reduce his fee to $850.

An audit of Brennan's trust account revealed that he was out of trust from April 1996 through March 1997. At all times between May 3, 1996 and June 2, 1997, $1,077.01 should have been on deposit in Brennan's trust account regarding the client's case. At various times during 1996, Brennan was out of trust. At one time he was out of trust by as much as $1,052.65 regarding this case alone when his account balance dipped as low as $24.36.

A primary reason Brennan was out of trust related to account activity regarding a second client. Brennan represented the second client regarding a personal injury claim. On April 11, 1996, he deposited a check from the insurance company in the amount of $7,566 as settlement for her claim. However, that check was not honored by the insurance company, and it was returned by the bank on April 19, 1996, three days after Brennan had disbursed $3,500 to the second client. Those funds ($3,500) were not replaced until March 7, 1997, when Brennan deposited another check from the insurance company in the amount of $7,137.38. Thus, he was out of trust in the amount of $3,500 from April 19, 1996, through March 7, 1997. Although most funds were accounted for, the audit also revealed several instances of disbursements made without corresponding deposits to cover those disbursements. There was no indication that Brennan converted any client trust account funds to his own use, although client funds were converted to the use of other clients.

Brennan also failed to maintain complete and accurate client trust account records. He did not track all funds deposited into or disbursed from the account. He did not keep separate ledgers for each client with funds on deposit, monthly reconciliations, or the other types of records required by SCR 20:1.15(e).

BAPR found that, by failing to either pay the bills or disburse the $1,077.01 directly to his client for more than a year, Brennan failed to promptly deliver funds to which a client or third person was entitled, in violation of SCR 20:1.15(b). His failure to provide the client with a written settlement statement upon conclusion of her contingency fee matter constituted a violation of SCR 20:1.5(c). BAPR also found that, by being out of trust for approximately one year, Brennan was in violation of SCR 20:1.15(a). He also failed to keep complete and accurate trust account records in violation of SCR 20:1.15(e). Consequently, by falsely certifying on his annual State Bar Dues Statement that he kept trust account records in compliance with SCR 20:1.15(e), Brennan violated SCR 20:1.15(g).

As a condition of a public reprimand, BAPR required Brennan to submit to the monitoring of his trust account for two years and to attend a CLE course on trust account compliance.

Public Reprimand of Stephen M. Needham

On Nov. 30, 1998, BAPR publicly reprimanded attorney Stephen M. Needham, 46, Milwaukee, for misconduct in two separate matters.

On March 12, 1997, Needham was retained by a man to assist him in the sale of his tavern. The client had a buyer and wanted Needham to assist in completing the sale before the client left on an upcoming vacation. However, it was determined that the sale could not be completed before he left on vacation. Needham therefore drew up an option to purchase that was signed by both parties, and the buyer then began operating the tavern. The client paid Needham $150 for these services.

When the client returned from vacation, he contacted Needham to finalize the sale. They agreed to meet at the tavern on April 25, 1997; however, Needham failed to appear.The client again contacted Needham, who stated that he did not appear because he had the flu. Another meeting was arranged for May 16, 1997, and again Needham failed to appear. Thereafter, the client made numerous phone calls to Needham's office, often calling several times a day, but Needham failed to respond to these phone calls. The client finally retained another attorney in September 1997 to finalize the sale.The buyer, however, refused to complete the sale, defaulted, and the client got the tavern back.

While Needham did supply an initial response to the grievance, Needham failed to respond to three letters from BAPR staff and, after the matter was referred to the District Professional Responsibility Committee for further investigation, Needham completely failed to cooperate with the committee investigator.

BAPR found that in failing to meet with the client as agreed in order to complete the sale of the tavern, Needham failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3. BAPR also found that in failing to return the client's numerous phone calls, Needham failed to comply with a client's reasonable requests for information about the status of a matter, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a). Finally, BAPR found that in failing to respond to three letters from its staff and completely failing to cooperate with the committee investigator, Needham failed to cooperate with BAPR's investigation of the matter, in violation of SCR 22.07(2).

In a second matter, a man retained Needham to represent him in an age discrimination suit against the client's former employer, an airline. Needham initially obtained a favorable ruling from an administrative law judge. However, the airline appealed and the decision was reversed by the Labor and Industry Review Commission (LIRC) on June 6, 1996. Needham had 30 days from that date to file a petition for review in circuit court and serve the LIRC and the airline.

Needham filed the petition for review on July 8, 1996, served the airline on July 7, 1996, and served the LIRC on July 8, 1996. Subsequently, on Nov. 22, 1996, Needham filed a stipulation and order between the client and the attorney general for voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the state court case. The circuit court judge signed this order. Needham wished to file the case in federal court in order to broaden the scope of review.

On Jan. 27, 1997, Needham filed the action in federal court. The airline subsequently moved to amend the state court order of dismissal to a dismissal with prejudice, based upon Needham's failure to serve the airline and the LIRC within the statutorily required 30 days from the LIRC's adverse decision. On July 25, 1997, the airline's motion was granted by the circuit court.

On Aug. 4, 1998, the airline moved in federal court to dismiss based upon the July 25, 1997, state court decision. On Sept. 17, 1997, the federal court sent the parties a notice of intent to dismiss with prejudice, giving Needham 10 days to respond. Needham failed to respond in any way. However, the court preferred to decide the matter on its merits and, on Oct. 9, 1997, the court had a phone conversation with the attorneys. Needham was given until Oct. 21, 1997, to respond to the motion to dismiss. Needham filed a response on Oct. 22, 1997, which the court subsequently found to contain no persuasive arguments. The matter was dismissed with prejudice on Oct. 31, 1997, and the court notes that the airline still had not received an entire response as of October 23, 1997. The court's Order of Dismissal indicates that Needham failed to respond to two other motions filed by the defendant (on July 29, 1997, and Aug. 6, 1997) despite calls from the clerk, conference calls from the judge, and extensions of deadlines.

Sometime within the next week, the client went to review the federal court file on this matter and learned for the first time of the state court order of dismissal and the federal court order of dismissal. The client then called Needham, and on Nov. 6, 1997, Needham sent a fax to the client indicating that the federal court trial date had been rescheduled. On Nov. 7, 1997, Needham sent the client another fax indicating that the Nov. 6, 1997 fax was in error, and that he would seek to reopen the case in state court. However, Oct. 26, 1997 was the deadline to file an appeal of the July 25, 1997, state court decision. The client subsequently retained new counsel.

Needham failed to respond to BAPR's first letter requesting a response to the grievance, but supplied a response after a second letter was sent. The matter was then referred to the District Professional Responsibility Committee for further investigation, and Needham completely failed to cooperate with the committee investigator.

BAPR found that in failing to timely serve the necessary parties with his petition for review in state court and failing to timely respond to the motion to dismiss in federal court, despite being extended several courtesies by the court, Needham failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in the representation of a client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3. BAPR also found that by failing to inform the client of the state and federal court dismissals, Needham failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a). BAPR further found that, by completely failing to provide any information to the committee investigator, Needham failed to cooperate with BAPR's investigation of the matter, in violation of SCR 22.07(2).

Needham was privately reprimanded by BAPR in 1982.