In September 1989, Attorney John A. Heibl of Madison was retained by a client for representation of the client's interests against those of a business with which the client had a dealership agreement. The client sought repurchase of inventory, pursuant to Wisconsin Statute 135.045 and other relief. As of May 1990, Mr. Heibl had not acted to advance the client's interests, at which time the client wrote to Heibl and urged him to proceed.

On May 15, 1990, Mr. Heibl wrote to the president of the adverse business and listed issues that he believed needed to be explored by the parties. On June 28, 1990, Mr. Heibl again wrote to the president of the adverse business and stated that if he did not hear from the president within ten days, Heibl would "necessarily presume that the issues . . . are incapable of resolution short of further proceedings . . . " and that Heibl would then file a civil action on behalf of the client. On June 28, 1990, Mr. Heibl also wrote to his client and confirmed their agreement that the filing of a lawsuit "must be done by July 20, 1990, this taking a conservative view with respect to the tolling of the statute of limitations."

On July 27, 1990, Mr. Heibl wrote to counsel for the adverse business and confirmed that counsel had, with respect to any action brought under the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law, "waived any objection on statute of limitations grounds for a period of 14 days from . . . July 23, 1990." In September 1991, Mr. Heibl again wrote to counsel for the adverse business, and stated that if he did not hear back from counsel within one week, "my client will be compelled to commence such action as may be available." Mr. Heibl continued to represent the client until June 1992, but never filed the lawsuit that he earlier told the client had to be filed by July 1990.

Throughout the period of Mr. Heibl's representation, the client often had difficulty in obtaining information from Heibl regarding the status of the case. Prior to writing to Mr. Heibl in May 1990 and urging action on Heibl's part, the client had made approximately eleven attempts over an approximate 23-day period to reach Heibl by telephone, but Heibl did not return the calls. From October 1991 to January 1992, the client telephoned Mr. Heibl's office approximately six times and received no return calls from Heibl.

The Board concluded that by failing to advance his client's interests against those of the business with which the client had a dispute and, in particular, by failing to ever file the lawsuit which he told the client had to be filed by July 1990, Mr. Heibl violated SCR 20:1.3, which states, "A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." The Board further concluded that by repeatedly failing to respond to his client's requests for information on the status of his case and otherwise failing to keep the client informed about the case, Mr. Heibl violated SCR 20:1.4(a), which states, "A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information."

Mr. Heibl was privately reprimanded in 1984 for failing to promptly prepare an order regarding modifications to a client's divorce judgment and for failing to communicate with the client subsequent to the court hearing resulting in the order.