Private Reprimand Summaries

Lack of diligence; failure to protect client upon termination of representation

Violations of SCR 20:1.3 and 20:1.16(d)

In January 1995 a man retained an attorney to pursue a dog bite case. Other than writing to the adverse insurer in May 1995 and having a paralegal inform the client in September 1996 that a demand for damages would be prepared, the attorney failed to advance the client's case as of the March 1997 termination of the attorney's representation, in violation of SCR 20:1.3. The client terminated the attorney's representation in March 1997 and, at that time, the attorney failed to return the client's file to him as requested, in violation of SCR 20:1.16(d).

Signing another's name without knowledge or consent

Violation of SCR 20:8.4(c)

An attorney ran a home building business with the husband of Complainant. This business was run out of a model home which the attorney, Complainant, and her husband had invested in, but was titled in the names of Complainant and her husband. In the summer of 1996, Complainant began divorce proceedings and the decision was made to sell the model home. On June 7, 1996, an offer to purchase the home was received by the attorney, who then notified the husband of the offer. The offer had to be accepted by June 10, 1996. On June 10 the attorney met with the husband, who informed the attorney that he had been unable to contact Complainant and she had not signed the offer. After some discussion, the attorney signed Complainant's name on the offer to purchase. The attorney did nothing to indicate that he was signing for Complainant, nor did the attorney have power of attorney or express authority of Complainant. At some point after June 10, 1996, Complainant learned that the attorney had signed her name on the offer to purchase and refused to proceed with the sale. At no time did Complainant give the attorney or her husband permission to sign her name on the offer to purchase.

BAPR found that by signing Complainant's name on the offer to purchase without her knowledge or permission, and without any indication that he was signing on behalf of the Complainant, the attorney engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, misrepresentation, or deceit in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).

Practicing law while administratively suspended

Violation of SCR 20:5.5 (a)

An attorney's law license was suspended on June 3, 1997, for failure to comply with the 1995-1996 Wisconsin mandatory continuing legal education (CLE) requirements. The attorney became aware of his suspension on June 6, 1997. On July 17, 1997, the attorney filed the required fees and a petition for reinstatement with the Board of Bar Examiners. After filing an amendment to this petition, the attorney was found to be in compliance with the CLE make-up requirement and his law license was reinstated on Aug. 7, 1997. During the suspension the attorney appeared in court on behalf of clients on seven occasions, met with clients, and performed legal research on behalf of clients. BAPR found that by continuing to practice law while suspended, the attorney violated SCR 20:5.5(a).

Revealing client confidences

Violation of SCR 20:1.6(a)

In the course of a criminal representation, the client confessed to his attorney that he had committed the crime and within minutes thereafter had what the attorney described as a "nervous breakdown." The attorney transported the client to the emergency room, where the client was hospitalized. At the hospital the attorney informed the client's wife that he had confessed. That same day, the attorney arranged a conference with the deputy district attorney and the presiding judge, and told them that his client had confessed. The client subsequently obtained other counsel and entered no contest pleas.

BAPR concluded that by revealing the client's confession to the district attorney, the judge, and the client's wife without the client's consent, the attorney violated SCR 20:1.6(a). In imposing this discipline, BAPR considered the fact that the attorney had no prior discipline and that at the time the attorney engaged in the misconduct, he may have been traumatized by the client's nervous breakdown.

Neglect; failure to return file; failure to communicate basis of fee

Violations of SCR 20:1.3, 20:1.16(d), and 20:1.5(b)

An attorney was appointed as GAL for Complainant's grandson, of whom she had custody. At a June 4, 1996, hearing, the court ordered that the child be returned to his mother and made several other provisions regarding visitation, support, and continuation of the child's therapy. The attorney was ordered to prepare the order for the court. At a September hearing, the attorney was again ordered to prepare the order. Another hearing was held in November 1996, and the attorney still had not prepared the necessary documents. Attorneys for the parties had provided the attorney with proposed drafts. The attorney did not submit the proposed order until a Jan. 23, 1997, hearing. BAPR found that the attorney's seven month delay constituted a violation of SCR 20:1.3.

In a separate matter, a client retained the attorney to represent her at a deportation hearing. The attorney did not inform the client as to whether he would be charging a flat fee or at an hourly rate. Periodically, the attorney would simply request more money from her. After several adjournments of her hearing, the client terminated the attorney's services, retained a new attorney, and requested the return of her file. BAPR found that the attorney failed to return the client's file despite her requests, in violation of SCR 20:1.16(d), and failed to communicate the rate or basis of his fee, in violation of SCR 20:1.5(b). The attorney had no prior discipline.

Neglect, failure to communicate, failure to return unearned fee, failure to properly supervise nonlawyer assistant, and failure to cooperate

Violations of SCR 20:1.3, 20:1.4(a), 20:5.3(b), 21.03(4), and 22.07(2) and (3)

While a woman was incarcerated in an out-of-state federal prison, she met an inmate who claimed that upon release the inmate would be working for an attorney's law office and that the attorney could assist the woman with both her criminal matter and a divorce. Sometime after the inmate was released from prison, the woman received a draft of a letter to the clerk of court regarding the filing of the divorce action. The letter also contained a notation that the woman should send a $95 check to the attorney's trust account.

The $95 was paid out of the woman's prison account to the attorney's trust account. The woman heard nothing further from the attorney or his office. The woman retained successor counsel, who wrote to the attorney requesting the return of the money and the woman's files, but the attorney failed to respond to those requests.

BAPR found that the attorney failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, contrary to SCR 20:1.3; failed to adequately communicate with a client regarding the status of her case, contrary to SCR 20:1.4(a); failed to properly supervise his nonlawyer assistant, contrary to SCR 20:5.3(b) and (c); and failed to cooperate with BAPR's investigation, contrary to SCR 21.03(4), and 22.07(2) and (3).

Violations of SCR 20:1.15(a) and (d)

In another matter, a man retained the attorney to defend him on a motion for contempt and to pursue custody of the man's son. The man paid the attorney a $3,000 retainer, which was deposited into the office account at the attorney's firm. Three months later the man informed the attorney that he no longer wanted the attorney to represent him and requested an itemized billing statement. The statement disclosed that the attorney had provided legal services and costs totaling $2,450. The $550 balance remained in the attorney's office account and was not returned to the man.

BAPR found that in failing to hold an advance payment of fees in a trust account until such time as those fees were earned, the attorney violated SCR 20:1.15 (a) and (d).

BAPR conditioned its offer of a private reprimand upon the attorney's submission of a written outline of the steps he has taken to assure proper supervision of his staff, including evidence of a regular tickler system for every file in the attorney's office. BAPR also requested that the attorney immediately return the $550 balance to the man and provide evidence that the money had been returned. The attorney satisfied those conditions. The attorney had no prior disciplinary history.

Representing driver and passenger in personal injury case

Violation of SCR 20:1.7(a)

In 1994 a woman was driving a vehicle in which her 20-month-old child and her sister were passengers, and all allegedly sustained injuries as the result of an accident. The child was in a booster seat but had not been belted in by the mother, the driver. The next day, the driver retained the attorney to represent her and the child, and the sister also retained him. The attorney did not advise them of the potential for conflicts of interest and did not have them sign written consents. Counsel for the driver's insurance company advised the attorney that he believed the attorney had a conflict, based on the apportioning of liability, but the attorney continued to represent all three clients.

In April 1995 the attorney filed actions on behalf of the sister and the child naming the driver, his client, as one of the co-defendants. In April 1997 the attorney obtained court approval of a minor settlement for the child, to which the mother's insurer contributed. In July 1997 the mother was released by her doctor, and she asked the attorney to proceed with her claim. The attorney told her he could no longer represent her as there now was a conflict of interest because he could not settle the sister's case, and he was proceeding to trial in the action where she was named as a co-defendant. Apparently, the attorney identified the conflict as developing only at the point he went to trial against his client.

The attorney accepted representation of clients having adverse interests in the same matter, without obtaining their written consent after consultation, in violation of SCR 20:1.7(a).

Neglect

Violation of SCR 20:1.3

An attorney represented a client regarding federal drug charges. At an Aug. 1, 1996, hearing, the court granted a request that the client be allowed a contact visit with his family at the local jail. The attorney was to submit an order for the judge's signature. On Sept. 11, the client's mother wrote the court asking for the contact visit. The court's clerk contacted the attorney on Sept. 12, again instructing him to prepare a proposed order. On Oct. 18, the client's mother again wrote the court as the attorney had not yet submitted an order. The client also wrote the court to complain about the attorney. On Oct. 23, the court ordered the attorney to respond to those concerns within five days. The court drafted its own order that same day.

BAPR found that, by failing for two-and-a-half months to timely prepare an order for the court allowing a contact visit between the client and his family, the attorney violated SCR 20:1.3. Although the attorney had two prior private reprimands, BAPR considered the attorney's neglect to be de minimis and it did not affect the substance of the criminal representation.

Misrepresentation in a real estate matter

Violation of SCR 20:8.4(c)

An attorney and a business partner, P, owned real estate-related businesses and some vacant lots. After the attorney and P had a falling out, a third party, X, made a verbal agreement with P to purchase P's interests. While the verbal deal between P and X was pending, the attorney and X sold one of the vacant lots to a home builder without P's knowledge and without X having acquired any interest in the property. The attorney drafted and signed numerous documents relating to the vacant lot sale, including an owner's affidavit of title under oath for a title insurance company and a warranty deed, all representing that the attorney and X were owners of the vacant lot. The attorney and X did not record the deed until after X and P closed their agreement. The attorney did not tell P about the sale of the lot because the attorney thought it would impede the impending transaction between P and X. After the closing of the vacant lot sale, the builder began constructing a home on the lot. The builder, who had dealt personally only with X, did not know that X was not an owner at the time of the closing.

The attorney violated SCR 20:8.4(c), which prohibits conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. The purchaser could have suffered significant harm because if the agreement between P and X had not closed, the purchaser would have been left with a house he could not sell because he did not have good title to the real estate. While the attorney's intentional misrepresentation under oath in executing the owner's affidavit for the title insurance company was, in particular, a serious matter, the attorney's misconduct was mitigated by the lack of tangible harm and by the attorney's lack of any prior discipline.

Failure to provide advance notice of fee, failure to return unearned portion of retainer, failure to cooperate with investigation

Violations of SCR 20:1.5(b), 20:1.16(d), and 21.03(4)

An attorney provided post-conviction, criminal defense representation to a man. The man's girlfriend delivered a cash retainer. The attorney, in violation of SCR 20:1.5(b), failed to provide the client or the client's girlfriend with advance notice of a $20.99 "one time charge to cover set-up, maintenance and storage of files and data." The attorney claimed the entire retainer fee, but because he billed for the $20.99 "one time charge" and for certain telephone calls occurring subsequent to the termination of representation, a portion of the retainer was unearned, and by failing to return the unearned portion of the retainer the attorney violated SCR 20:1.16(d). The attorney offered to return the entire retainer on the condition that the client and girlfriend "withdraw" a grievance filed against him with BAPR, in violation of SCR 21.03(4), which requires attorneys to cooperate with BAPR investigations. The attorney engaged in a separate violation of SCR 21.03(4) when he misrepresented to a district committee investigator the extent of his involvement in seeking to have the client and girlfriend withdraw the grievance and execute a release.

Conflicts of interest as government lawyer

Violations of SCR 20:1.7(b)

From 1988 through October 1996 an attorney was employed as corporation counsel for a Wisconsin county. In 1983 a wealthy woman gifted a parcel of land to the county. In 1992 the county abandoned its efforts to obtain a deed from the woman. The woman died in 1993, and her will provided that the parcel, an unbuildable lot, was to be sold. In May 1996 the personal representative of the woman's estate made an offer to the attorney to donate the parcel to the county. The personal representative subsequently agreed to sell for $300 the parcel to the attorney who had previously expressed an interest in it. The attorney failed to obtain a written waiver from the county before purchasing the parcel in September 1996, in violation of SCR 20:1.7(b).

In 1993 the attorney represented the county in a foreclosure action of tax liens on various parcels of property, including six particular lots. The six lots were appraised at a total of $9,000. Subsequent to the judgment in the foreclosure action, the county treasurer advertised the lots for sale at the appraised amount. The treasurer received no offers and the properties were readvertised. The attorney inquired of the County Board Finance Committee if he could submit a sealed bid on tax delinquent properties. The committee orally informed the attorney that he could bid, but should follow standard bid procedures. The attorney submitted a sealed bid for $5,052 for the six lots. The only other bid was from a local real estate appraiser who bid $300 for the six lots. The attorney was not advised of the other bid until the bids were opened. In August 1993 the Finance Committee awarded the attorney all six lots for $5,052. The attorney's failure to obtain a written waiver from the county constituted a violation of SCR 20:1.7(b). The attorney had no prior discipline.

Wisconsin Lawyer