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.
Disciplinary Proceeding
Against Matthew O. Olaiya
The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law license of Matthew O.
Olaiya, 44, formerly of Madison and now residing in Lagos, Nigeria, for
six months effective Dec. 4, 2001. The misconduct involved Olaiya's
abandonment of four clients whom he was representing on immigration
matters. Olaiya left for Nigeria in June 1999 and, except for a brief
visit to the U.S. in December 1999 and January 2000, has not
returned.
The first client paid Olaiya $700 to assist in obtaining a visa for
the client's fiancée. Olaiya filed the necessary documents but then
told the client that he would be "on vacation" for several weeks. After
Olaiya departed for Nigeria, the Department of Immigration and
Naturalization Services indicated it required additional information.
Olaiya did not advise his client of this development and made no
arrangements to have the work done, nor did he return the client's
retainer fee.
The second client paid Olaiya $350 to change the client's nonresident
alien status. Olaiya filed the necessary documents and initially
communicated with the client, but then left the country. Olaiya failed
to respond to the client's attempts to contact him and failed to comply
with the client's request that Olaiya transfer the file to another
attorney.
The third grievance involved a corporate client that paid Olaiya a
partial $2,000 prepayment to take steps permitting the company's
employee to remain in the United States and continue working for the
company, and also for filing immigration documents on behalf of the
employee's husband. Olaiya failed to take the required actions, and the
Department of Workforce Development (DWD) closed its file regarding the
employee. Olaiya failed to inform his client that the file was closed
due to his inaction. Instead, Olaiya asked the DWD to reopen the file
and, when the client requested a status report, Olaiya informed the
client that the DWD had "not gotten" to the case. Olaiya also failed to
respond to several other agency requests for information regarding this
matter and failed to respond to the client's repeated inquiries
regarding the status of the matter.
After each of the three clients filed grievances with the Office of
Lawyer Regulation (OLR), Olaiya failed to respond to requests for
responses to the grievances. He belatedly sent an email message
containing a general denial of the allegations. After being notified
that his response was insufficient, Olaiya sent a follow-up email
maintaining that his prior response was adequate.
The fourth matter involved a client who paid Olaiya a $2,500 retainer
to represent the client's sister in an application for political asylum.
An asylum hearing was scheduled for Oct. 21, 1999, in Minnesota. One day
before the scheduled hearing, Olaiya had the client's file dropped off
at another attorney's office. The client flew to Minnesota for the
hearing, but no one appeared on the client's behalf, and the hearing was
cancelled. Olaiya failed to respond to the client's follow-up telephone
calls and to the client's request that Olaiya refund the retainer and
reimburse the client's travel expenses.
The board notified Olaiya of this grievance and requested a written
response. Olaiya responded in an email message, claiming that he had
performed all the services for which he was paid and claiming that the
client was uncooperative, owed him money, and had not responded to his
calls or letters. The email response did not address Olaiya's failure to
appear at the hearing and provided no verification for his claims that
the client was uncooperative. After being notified that his response to
the grievance was insufficient, Olaiya sent a follow-up email
maintaining that his initial response was adequate. The referee later
found that a cancelled check and retainer agreement demonstrated that
Olaiya's claim that the client owed Olaiya money was false and
misleading.
In the disciplinary proceedings, Olaiya failed to appear at a hearing
on a motion to compel. The referee entered an order requiring Olaiya to
respond to outstanding discovery requests and to appear for his
deposition. This order advised Olaiya that his failure to comply without
good cause would result in the issuance of an order striking his answer
to the board's complaint. Olaiya failed to comply with the order and did
not appear at the final scheduling conference. Accordingly, the referee
issued an order striking the answer and issued findings of fact and
conclusions of law consistent with the board's complaint.
The referee concluded that by abandoning his law practice and thereby
failing to protect his clients' interests upon termination of
representation with respect to the first and second client, and by
failing to return the second client's advance payments of fees that had
not been earned, Olaiya violated SCR 20:1.16(d); by failing to notify
the first, third, and fourth clients of various agency demands for
further information and/or the need for revisions to filed documents,
Olaiya violated SCR 20:1.3; by failing to keep the first, second, and
third clients reasonably informed regarding the status of their
respective legal matters, Olaiya violated SCR 20:1.4(a); by failing to
cooperate with the board's investigation of each of the four grievances,
Olaiya violated (former) SCR 21.03(4); by failing to provide full and
fair information regarding the circumstances pertaining to the alleged
misconduct in each of the four grievances, Olaiya violated (former) SCR
22.07(2); and by causing the fourth client's file to be delivered to
another attorney without the client's consent, Olaiya revealed
information relating to the representation of a client without the
client's consent in violation of SCR 20:1.6.
In addition to imposing a six-month suspension of Olaiya's law
license and assessing costs of the proceeding, the court ordered that as
a condition of reinstatement, Olaiya is required to refund $700 to the
first client and $2,500, plus $1,000 for travel expenses, to the fourth
client.
Temporary Suspension of John E.
Sanborn
Pursuant to SCR 22.21, on Sept. 11, 2001, the OLR filed a motion for
a temporary suspension of the law license of John E. Sanborn, 61, of
Janesville. The OLR motion stated that the investigation initially
concerned Sanborn's possible neglect of an estate in Rock County.
The OLR motion also asserted that the investigation to date of the
Rock County estate revealed the following potential misconduct:
1) In failing to take the requisite steps to complete the probate of
the estate, including filing the inventory and the final account,
Sanborn failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client, contrary to SCR 20:1.3.
2) In failing to keep the personal representative of the estate
informed regarding steps to close the estate, Sanborn failed to keep a
client reasonably informed about the status of a matter, contrary to SCR
20:1.4(b).
3) In depositing a $7,000 check received from one of the estate
beneficiaries into his client trust account on July 1, 1999, and in
subsequently writing a July 1, 1999 check in the amount of $7,000 to
himself that he then presented for cash, Sanborn failed to hold in trust
the property of a client, contrary to SCR 20:1.15(a), and engaged in
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation,
contrary to SCR 20:8.4(c).
4) In testifying under oath on April 9, 2001, that after he placed
the $7,000 cash into his office safe, where it was held until March 16,
2001, that he did not make use of any of the $7,000 while it was in his
possession, when in fact the $7,000 had not been in Sanborn's office
safe the whole time, Sanborn engaged in conduct involving dishonesty,
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, contrary to SCR 20:8.4(c).
Moreover, during the course of OLR's investigation, by stating that he
had no explanation regarding the whereabouts of the $7,000 despite
knowledge of the foregoing circumstances, Sanborn made a
misrepresentation in a disclosure, contrary to SCR 22.03(6).
5) In testifying under oath on April 9, 2001, that subsequent to June
8, 1999, there had been no further disbursement from the estate checking
account, when on Aug. 4, 1999, Sanborn presented a $5,000 check payable
to himself from the estate checking account for cash, Sanborn engaged in
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation,
contrary to SCR 20:8.4(c) and SCR 22.03(6).
6) In depositing $6,231.80 on behalf of a divorce client into his
client trust account on July 27, 1999, and on July 29, 1999, issuing a
$5,500 check from the client trust account to himself for cash, Sanborn
failed to hold in trust the property of a client in connection with a
representation, contrary to SCR 20:1.15(a), and engaged in conduct
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, contrary to
SCR 20:8.4(c).
7) In depositing $12,000 of his own money into his client trust
account and in using that money to make disbursements to other clients,
a nonemployee consultant, and his own employee, Sanborn commingled
personal funds with the funds of clients, contrary to SCR 20:1.15(a),
and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation, contrary to SCR 20:8.4(c).
8) In failing to consult with and obtain prior written consent from
the personal representative for Sanborn to loan his own funds to an
estate client to pay outstanding real estate taxes, Sanborn represented
a client when the representation of that client may be materially
limited by Sanborn's own interests, contrary to SCR 20:1.7(b).
9) In failing to keep a cash receipts journal, a disbursements
journal, a subsidiary ledger containing a separate page for each person
or company for whom the funds have been received in trust, showing the
date and amount of each receipt, the date and amount of each
disbursement and any unexpended balance, a monthly subsidiary ledger,
indicating the balance of each client's account at the end of each month
and a determination of cash balance taken from the cash receipts journal
and cash disbursement journal, and a reconciliation of the cash balance
with the balance indicated on the bank statement, Sanborn failed to
maintain complete records of trust account funds and other trust
property, contrary to SCR 20:1.15(e).
Finally, OLR's motion asserted that Sanborn's continued practice of
law during the pendency of this investigation, as well as eight
additional grievance investigations, posed a threat to the interests of
the public and the administration of justice.
On Sept. 13, 2001, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered Sanborn to
show cause within 20 days why the OLR's motion for temporary suspension
of his license should not be granted. On Sept. 13, 2001, Sanborn filed
his own petition for consensual license suspension. On Sept. 18, 2001,
OLR responded to Sanborn's petition. Finally, on Sept. 27, 2001, Sanborn
responded to the OLR motion for temporary suspension. On Oct. 23, 2001,
the court dismissed Sanborn's petition for license suspension and issued
an order granting OLR's motion and temporarily suspended Sanborn's
license to practice law in Wisconsin effective on the date of the
order.
Public Reprimand of Thomas E.
Zablocki
On Oct. 30, 2001, the Wisconsin Supreme Court publicly reprimanded
Thomas E. Zablocki, 61, of Greendale, for professional misconduct in the
course of his representation of a couple involved in a divorce
proceeding.
In 1995 Zablocki consented to a private reprimand from the Board of
Attorneys Professional Responsibility (BAPR). On June 24, 1998, the
court suspended Zablocki's Wisconsin law license for six months,
effective Aug. 10, 1998, for various violations, including failure to
maintain a client trust account, depositing client funds into personal
checking accounts, diverting client funds for his own purposes, and
failing to cooperate with BAPR's investigation. See Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Zablocki, 219 Wis. 2d 313, 579 N.W.2d 233 (1998).
Zablocki's license remains suspended.
In May 1997 a woman retained Zablocki to represent her in a
contemplated divorce from her husband. While the divorce was pending,
the couple considered filing for bankruptcy. In the spring of 1998 they
consulted with Zablocki, and he advised them it would be cheaper and
easier if he were to represent them both in the bankruptcy proceedings.
The couple decided to retain Zablocki to handle the bankruptcy case. The
wife paid Zablocki $400 plus half of the filing fee, and the husband
paid Zablocki at least $400.
Despite his imminent suspension from the practice of law, on or about
July 20, 1998, Zablocki filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy action on behalf of
the couple. Although there was an obvious conflict of interest between
Zablocki's representation of the wife against her husband in the divorce
case and the representation of both the husband and wife in the
bankruptcy case, Zablocki did not obtain the written consent of either
the husband or wife to this arrangement. At no time did Zablocki notify
the husband or wife of the fact that his license was to be suspended and
that he would be unable to act as their attorney after that date. He
also did not notify the bankruptcy trustee, bankruptcy court, or circuit
court before which the divorce case was pending of his suspension and
inability to act after Aug. 10, 1998. Zablocki did not refund any
portion of the fee the couple had paid him for the bankruptcy
action.
The court found that, by representing the wife in the bankruptcy case
when his representation was directly adverse to the husband and when his
representation of the wife was materially limited by his responsibility
to the husband, without obtaining written consent from each client,
Zablocki violated SCR 20:1.7(a) and (b); by failing to notify either the
husband or wife by certified mail of his suspension and by failing to
notify of his suspension both the divorce court and the bankruptcy
court, before which cases were pending, Zablocki failed to properly and
timely notify a client and two courts of the suspension of his law
license and his inability to act in pending matters, he violated SCR
22.26(1)(a) and (b); by failing to refund the portion of the advance fee
payment for the bankruptcy that he had not fully earned, he violated SCR
20:1.16(d); and by failing to keep complete records of trust account
funds, he violated SCR 20:1.15(e).
Wisconsin Lawyer
