| |
Lawyer Discipline
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).
|
