The Respondent, Attorney Scott F. Anderson, 51, practices in Milwaukee. In January 2004, a man (the “client”) hired the Respondent to represent him in a pending criminal matter. On or about February 4, 2004, the client paid the Respondent $1,500.00. The Respondent failed to adequately explain the rate or basis of his fee to the client at any time during the representation, including whether the $1,500 represented a flat fee, an advance payment of fees to be earned at an hourly rate, or a true retainer earned when paid.

The Respondent made his initial appearance in the case on January 26, 2004, although the client did not appear in court for that appearance. On a motion from the Respondent, the client’s arraignment was continued until February 9, 2004. The Respondent appeared on February 9, 2004, again, without the client, and requested a second continuance be granted for the arraignment. The court granted the second continuance until February 16, 2004; however, the court also ordered that the client “MUST appear” at the February 16, 2004 arraignment. The court records indicate that the Respondent was late for the arraignment on February 9, 2004, and that the case was recalled three times without the Respondent being present. The records indicate the Respondent did appear later in the day during the jail call. On February 16, 2004, both the client and the Respondent appeared for the arraignment.

On March 8, 2004, the Respondent appeared for the pretrial conference. The client did not attend the pretrial conference. On March 15, 2004, the client appeared in court for a show cause hearing. The Respondent did not appear. The client stated that he appeared on March 15, 2004 because he believed, based on Section D of his Bail Slip, that he was required to appear for the show cause hearing if he did not personally appear for the pretrial conference on March 8, 2004. Additionally, the client had telephoned the Respondent to ask about whether he was required to appear on March 15, 2004, but the Respondent had not returned his telephone calls. After arriving at court on March 15, 2004, the client was advised by court staff that he was not required to appear because the Respondent had attended the pretrial conference on March 8, 2004.

The client provided OLR with copies of his telephone records from February through May, 2004. Those statements show 26 telephone calls from the client to the Respondent between February 16, 2004 and March 15, 2004. Although many of those telephone calls occurred after business hours and for one minute or less, at least 4 of the calls occurred during business hours and at least 2 of the calls were for two minutes or less, supporting the client’s statements to OLR that he had called the Respondent’s office prior to March 15, 2004 in order to determine if he was required to appear on March 15, 2004.

The client advised OLR staff that the Respondent did not tell him that he did not have to appear on March 15, 2004 nor did the Respondent explain the language of Section D in sufficient detail to allow the client to understand that if the Respondent appeared for the pretrial conference on March 8, 2004, then the client did not have to appear for the show cause hearing on March 15, 2004.

While the Respondent stated that the client knew that the Respondent intended to attend the pretrial conference on March 8, 2004 and, therefore, the client should have known he did not need to appear in court on March 15, 2004, the Respondent admitted that: (a) except for a discussion in person following the client’s arraignment on February 16, 2004, the Respondent did not discuss with the client whether the client would need to appear on March 15, 2004 until after March 15, 2004; and (b) The Respondent did not communicate with the client by telephone or in writing regarding the pretrial conference which occurred on March 8, 2004, and which relieved the client of the obligation to appear on March 15, 2004, until the Respondent sent the client a letter on March 15, 2004, the same day that the client mistakenly appeared for court. The client did not receive the letter notifying him that the Respondent had attended the pretrial conference until after March 15, 2004. The language on the bail slip is unclear as to whether a defendant must appear on the show cause date (March 15, 2004) if he did not personally attend the pretrial conference.

The client’s telephone records indicate that the client telephoned the Respondent’s office 19 times between March 15, 2004 and March 29, 2004. Several of those calls lasted two minutes or more. Again, many of these calls were made after business hours and, therefore, probably resulted in voicemail or answering machine messages. The client stated that he advised the Respondent that he wished to terminate the Respondent’s representation in several of these telephone messages.

On or about March 29, 2004, after the client appeared unnecessarily for court on March 15, 2004, and after the Respondent had not returned the client’s telephone calls, the client attempted to terminate the Respondent’s services by having his mother send a certified letter to the Respondent terminating his services. On the outside of the envelope, the client wrote, “you are fired!” Despite six delivery attempts by the United States Post Office (3/31/04, 4/6/04, 4/14/04, 4/23/04, 5/3/04, and 5/13/04) the certified letter was not claimed by the Respondent and was returned to the client unopened. The Respondent denies he ever received the letter or any notice of the United States Postal Service’s six attempts to deliver the letter. In response to OLR staff questions, the Respondent stated that he does not have any staff members and shares office space with one other attorney. The Respondent advised staff that if either attorney is out of the office, the mail is left at the office through a mail slot. The Respondent acknowledged that if the attorneys were out, the United States Post Office would ordinarily leave a slip for any item requiring a signature; however, he denies he received any such slips during the time period in question. Despite the Respondent’s statements that he did not receive notice of the certified letter from the client, the notations on the envelope made by the United States Postal Service document that some notice was provided to the Respondent’s office of the attempt to deliver the certified letter.

Additionally, the client indicated that he left numerous telephone messages for the Respondent during the months of March, April, May, and June 2004, indicating he wished to terminate the Respondent’s services and requesting his file and a refund of the $1,500.00 he had paid the Respondent. The client’s telephone records show that he called the Respondent: (i) several times per day on nine separate days between March 15, 2004 and March 31, 2004; (ii) five times over two separate days in April, 2004; and, (iii) four times over three days in May 2004.

There is no indication that the Respondent responded to the telephone messages left by the client at his office between March 15, 2004, and June 20, 2004, either by telephone or in writing. Additionally, the Respondent’s log for the client’s case shows no activity between March 15, 2004 and June 20, 2004. Further, the Respondent acknowledged that the client left numerous long messages on the Respondent’s voicemail office between March 15, 2004, and June 20, 2004 and that in some of those messages Wagner advised the Respondent that he was fired. The Respondent acknowledged that because they were often “long” and “rambling,” the Respondent often “cut [the messages] short.” The Respondent did not respond to these messages. The Respondent did state that it was difficult to return the client’s telephone calls because his voicemail was often full.

On June 9, 2004, the Respondent failed to appear for a review hearing scheduled in the client’s case. The client appeared for the hearing. The Respondent asserts that a conflict developed between the hearing in the client’s case and appearances the Respondent had scheduled in Milwaukee on June 9, 2004. The Respondent asserts that he called the Dodge County court to advise the court that he would be unable to appear on June 9, 2004; however, there is no record in the court’s file of any communication from the Respondent to the court on June 9, 2004, nor is there a record of any activity on the Respondent’s time log for the client’s case for June 9, 2004. Further, there is no indication that the Respondent attempted to contact the client on or before June 9, 2004 to advise him that he would be unable to appear in the Dodge County court for the June 9, 2004 hearing. Additionally, with regard to the appearances conflicting with the June 9, 2004 hearing, the Respondent was unable to advise OLR staff of: (i) when the matters in Milwaukee were scheduled; (ii) when the Respondent first became aware of the conflict with the client’s hearing; or (iii) when the Respondent should have become aware of the potential conflict with the client’s hearing. Finally, while the Respondent initially told OLR staff that the June 9, 2004 hearing had been rescheduled, he admitted in his letter to OLR dated September 24, 2004, that he did not attempt to reschedule the hearing. His explanation in his letter is that there was no need to reschedule the hearing as the matter remained on the court’s calendar for a jury trial on June 22, 2004. There is no indication that The Respondent communicated with the client in any way regarding the missed June 9, 2004 hearing or whether it would or should be rescheduled.

There is no evidence that there was any communication from the Respondent to the client between March 15, 2004, and June 21, 2004, the day before the jury trial was scheduled to take place. On June 21, 2004, the trial judge determined that he had a conflict with the client’s case and contacted the Respondent to advise the Respondent that he would recuse himself and order the case re-assigned. The Respondent stated that he had no way of getting in touch with the client to tell him that the trial had been rescheduled, as the client was on his way to Dodge County from Illinois for trial the next day and his home voicemail was full. Additionally, the client initially told OLR intake staff that the Respondent had called on June 21, 2004, but that the client did not answer the call. It is unclear whether the Respondent made more than one call; however, according to the client’s statement, it does appear that the Respondent made at least one call to the client’s home to try to reach him on June 21, 2004. The client claims to have called the Respondent once he arrived in Wisconsin on June 21, 2004, but the Respondent denies receiving a call or a message from the client on June 21, 2004.

On June 22, 2004, the client appeared for trial, not knowing that the trial would be postponed. The Respondent did not appear in court on June 22, 2004. The Respondent provided OLR staff with a copy of a letter dated June 22, 2004, in which the Respondent explained to the client that the trial had been canceled and why. However, the client denies receiving this letter from the Respondent and stated that he did not receive the letter until OLR staff sent it to him.