On July 16, 1981, Thomas Croke was appointed the guardian of a woman, R.W., who had been found incompetent by the Court. In 1982, he sold her major asset, her homestead, agreeing to a cash payment and the $26,000 balance on a three (3) year land contract. Subsequently, on February 17, 1983, Attorney Croke was appointed the guardian of the Estate of a man, E.B., who had been found incompetent by the Court. Attorney Croke proceeded to liquidate E.B.'s assets, undeveloped land, through sales into cash. All funds received by Attorney Croke were deposited into the appropriate guardianship accounts.

On November 7, 1983, due to R.W.'s need to have liquid assets, Attorney Croke assigned R.W.'s interest in the land contract on her homestead to E.B. in return for a total payment of $25,862.87. This was a transaction in which E.B. and R.W. had adverse interests. Attorney Croke made four (4) withdrawals from E.B.'s guardianship account constituting payment to R.W.: one on August 31, 1983 in the amount of $2,745; a second on September 30, 1983 in the amount of $1,396.45; a third on November 1, 1983 in the amount of $2,000; and a fourth on November 7, 1983 in the amount of $19,721.42. Attorney Croke characterized this transaction as an investment of E.B.'s funds. Attorney Croke did not consult the court nor obtain the court's permission to make this investment. Further, Attorney Croke made the first three withdrawals from the guardianship account prior to execution of the land contract assignment and made no other documentation of the transaction prior to or in conjunction with the first three payments, thereby failing to protect E.B.'s interests.

On August 1, 1984, Attorney Croke withdrew $6,000 from the guardianship account of E.B. to pay himself attorney's fees. Combined with prior withdrawals for attorney's fees made between April 5, 1983 and August 1, 1984, Attorney Croke paid himself a total of $8,897.10 in attorney's fees. The fees were not submitted to the court for approval. Attorney Croke failed to keep contemporaneous records of his time and prepared an estimation of his final bill based upon a review of his file and records only after he had been removed as guardian by the court. Attorney Croke's itemization shows that over thirty (30) hours of legal services were provided after he had made the last legal fee payment to himself. Therefore, Attorney Croke had paid almost $3,000 in legal fees to himself prior to having earned the fees, although the total amount of fees paid for services ultimately provided was reasonable.

On August 28, 1984, R.W. died. On July 15, 1985, Milwaukee County notified the court of her death. There is no indication that Attorney Croke notified the court of her death, and he did not take any steps to wind up the guardianship Estate. Attorney Croke did not file the 1984 guardianship accounting until December 5, 1985, and only after three hearings had been held on the Court's Order to Show Cause. On November 10, 1986, Attorney Croke filed the Annual Account for 1985. On December 4, 1986, Attorney Croke filed Amended Annual Accounts for 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986. In 1988, the Court issued another Order to Show Cause, and, on May 23, 1988, Attorney Croke filed the Annual Account for 1987, completing the guardianship.

In regard to the E.B. guardianship, in July of 1985, the Court received information that Attorney Croke had not been paying E.B.'s nursing home bills and that E.B. faced eviction. The Court issued an Order to Show Cause, and Attorney Croke failed to appear at the hearing. The Court subsequently removed Attorney Croke as the guardian based on his failure to appear and his failure to file guardianship accountings for 1983 and 1984. Due to Attorney Croke's failure to cooperate with the successor guardian in turning over records, the court issued another Order to Show Cause, and a body attachment was issued for Attorney Croke by the court when he failed to appear for a February 10, 1986 hearing. On March 25, 1986, Attorney Croke filed Annual Accounts for the E.B. guardianship for the years of 1983, 1984 and 1985, and the body attachment was withdrawn.

The Board concluded that Attorney Croke had engaged in a dual representation when the exercise of his independent professional judgment on behalf of E.B. was adversely affected by his representation of R.W., in violation of SCR 20.28(2) [currently SCR 20:1.7(b)]. The Board also found that Attorney Croke had engaged in conduct involving dishonesty or misrepresentation by withdrawing funds from E.B.'s guardianship account to pay himself fees which he had not yet earned, in violation of SCR 20.04(4) [currently SCR 20:8.4(c)]. Further, the Board concluded that Attorney Croke had neglected the guardianship Estates of E.B. and R.W., in violation of SCR 20.32(3) [currently SCR 20:1.3].

In a second matter, Attorney Croke was appointed to represent a man convicted of first degree murder regarding his post-conviction relief and appeal. Attorney Croke appropriately filed post-conviction motions and pursued an appeal to the Court of Appeals when the trial court denied the motions. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial.

On October 11, 1985, Attorney Croke wrote to the client advising him of the decision and indicating that the client should contact Attorney Croke "immediately" if he wished Attorney Croke to file a Petition for Review with the Supreme Court. The client stated that he replied to Attorney Croke on October 16, 1985, but Attorney Croke denies receiving this letter. On May 1, 1986, the client wrote Attorney Croke a letter asking for a status report, indicating that he had not heard from Attorney Croke, and referred to his October 16, 1985 letter.

Attorney Croke states that there was no basis to file a Petition for Review and that he had advised the client of this in telephone conversations. However, the client wrote several letters to Attorney Croke which clearly indicate that the client believed that Attorney Croke had filed or would be filing a Petition for Review. Attorney Croke wrote a letter to the client on September 9, 1986, but the letter did not respond to the client's request for information as to the status of the Petition for Review. On September 11, 1986, the client wrote a letter to Attorney Croke requesting the return of his file and copies of all documents relating to the Petition for Review. When the client received no response, on November 3, 1986, the client contacted the trial court requesting a copy of the court file. By letter, the court advised the client to contact Attorney Croke. On December 11, 1986, the client wrote to Attorney Croke again and included a copy of the Judge's response. Attorney Croke subsequently assembled the file and sent it to the client.

On April 9, 1987, the client filed a grievance with the Board regarding Attorney Croke's failure to file the Petition for Review. The Public Defender's Office had reviewed the court file, transcripts, motions and briefs, and they concluded, as did Attorney Croke, that there was no basis for filing a Petition for Review.

The Board concluded that Attorney Croke's failure to directly and immediately clarify to his client that he was not filing a Petition for Review constituted failure to communicate with a client, in violation of SCR 20.32(3) [currently SCR 20:1.4(a)].

In evaluating the appropriate sanction for this disciplinary violation, the Board considered that Attorney Croke was experiencing significant personal problems during the period of much of the misconduct, and that he had had no discipline prior to the misconduct and no other discipline subsequent to the period of misconduct. Therefore, the Board determined that a Public Reprimand is the appropriate discipline for the misconduct herein.

In accordance with SCR 21.09(2), the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility does hereby publicly reprimand Attorney Thomas M. Croke, of Milwaukee.