Sign In
    Wisconsin Lawyer
    December 01, 2001

    Wisconsin Lawyer December 2001: Lawyer Discipline

    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.

    Next Page


Join the conversation! Log in to comment.

News & Pubs Search

-
Format: MM/DD/YYYY