Attorney Chris A. Gramstrup was employed as an associate at a law firm in the city of Superior in the approximate period of September 1989 to late May 1992. In that time period, Mr. Gramstrup engaged in misconduct in seven separate client matters.

In the first matter, Mr. Gramstrup represented a client as the plaintiff in a civil matter. Mr. Gramstrup failed to appear for trial, held the incorrect belief that his client had obtained a judgment against the adverse party, and pursued collection on the non-existent judgment, all in violation of SCR 20:1.1, which states, "A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation." The client's action was ultimately dismissed. Mr. Gramstrup failed to inform the client that his case had been dismissed, and incorrectly told him that a judgment had been obtained in his favor, in violation of 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." After a shareholder in Mr. Gramstrup's firm learned that a judgment had not been obtained in the client's favor and, in fact, the case had been dismissed, Gramstrup informed the members of the firm that the dismissal was a mistake and that he would prepare an affidavit and motion to reopen the judgment and reinstate the action. Mr. Gramstrup never took any such remedial measures, in violation of SCR 20:1.3, which requires a lawyer to "act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client."

In the second matter, Mr. Gramstrup represented a client as the plaintiff in a civil action in which the client sought $4,200 for stumpage, firewood, and road damage. Mr. Gramstrup filed a summons and complaint, but he never took steps to serve the defendant, in violation of SCR 20:1.1 and 20:1.3. Mr. Gramstrup told his client that he obtained a judgment in his favor when he had obtained no such judgment and, in fact, had never even properly commenced the action by obtaining service on the defendant. Mr. Gramstrup thereby failed to accurately inform his client of the status of the matter, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a). By telling a shareholder in his firm and his client that he had obtained a judgment on the client's behalf, when he knew that was not the case, and by further informing the client that he would engage in post-judgment discovery to determine the defendant's assets, Mr. Gramstrup violated SCR 20:8.4(c), which prohibits attorneys from engaging in "conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation."

In the third matter, Mr. Gramstrup represented a married couple as the plaintiffs in a land contract foreclosure action filed in 1989. Mr. Gramstrup held the incorrect belief that he had obtained a judgment on behalf of his clients and actually arranged for newspaper publication of a notice of foreclosure sale, even though no judgment had been obtained, and thereby provided incompetent representation, in violation of SCR 20:1.1. Mr. Gramstrup failed to take steps to advance his clients' case as of the time he left his firm in May 1992, in violation of SCR 20:1.3. Mr. Gramstrup incorrectly told his clients that he had obtained a judgment in their favor and that the matter was nearly concluded, thereby failing to provide them with accurate information about the status of their case, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a). During the pendency of the foreclosure action, Mr. Gramstrup entered into a land contract with his clients for the same property that was the subject of his representation, without advising the clients to seek independent counsel and without obtaining their written consent, in violation of SCR 20:1.8(a), which states, "A lawyer shall not enter into a business transaction with a client or knowingly acquire an ownership, possessory, security or other pecuniary interest adverse to a client unless: (1) the transaction and terms on which the lawyer acquires the interest are fair and reasonable to the client and are fully disclosed and transmitted in writing to the client in a manner that can be reasonably understood by the client; (2) the client is given a reasonable opportunity to seek the advice of independent counsel in the transaction; and (3) the client consents in writing thereto."

In the fourth matter, Mr. Gramstrup represented a client as the plaintiff in a land contract foreclosure and replevin action. In January 1992, the court granted plaintiff's summary judgment motion. Mr. Gramstrup prepared rough draft findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment in the case, but he never put them in final form for submission to the court prior to his departure from his law firm in late May 1992, in violation of SCR 20:1.3.

In the fifth matter, Mr. Gramstrup represented a married couple on a bankruptcy petition. Mr. Gramstrup failed to send in reaffirmations to certain credit card companies, causing his clients to lose the use of those credit cards, in violation of SCR 20:1.3.

In the sixth matter, Mr. Gramstrup represented an insurance company against two defendants in a subrogation action to recover amounts paid under uninsured motorist coverage. Trial in the matter was scheduled for February 1991. At the courthouse, on the day scheduled for trial, Mr. Gramstrup and counsel for one of the defendants reached an oral stipulation in the matter. The stipulation, or at least the existence of the stipulation, was communicated to the judge in order to cancel the scheduled trial, but the stipulation was never reduced to writing, nor was anything ever signed by the parties or their counsel to dispose of the action. No judgment was ever entered as a result of any stipulated disposition of the case. A claims representative for Mr. Gramstrup's client states that phone calls and correspondence she had with Mr. Gramstrup around February 1991 led her to believe that Gramstrup had obtained a judgment against one of the defendants in the amount of $7,062.69. On a form dated April 24, 1991 that the client sent to Mr. Gramstrup and which Gramstrup returned to the client, Gramstrup states, "We have taken judgment against the defendant . . . ." On a similar form sent to Mr. Gramstrup on August 1, 1991, Gramstrup replies, "Judgment obtained." In a letter to the client's claim representative dated May 14, 1992, Mr. Gramstrup states, " . . . the Judgment against [Defendant] has been filed . . . ." When the claims representative wrote to Mr. Gramstrup about " . . . payment on the Judgment . . . ," Mr. Gramstrup did not correct her and point out that no judgment existed. Mr. Gramstrup represented to his client that he had obtained a judgment on its behalf, knowing that no judgment existed, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a) and 20:8.4(c).

In the seventh matter, Mr. Gramstrup began representing a woman in late 1989 in her capacity as personal representative for her father's estate. By January 1990, all of the estate assets had been liquidated so there was only a cash balance in the estate, which had a gross value of about $56,000. During 1990, 1991, and the early part of 1992, the client continually telephoned and wrote to Mr. Gramstrup, trying to find out why the estate was not being closed. Mr. Gramstrup usually did not respond to the client, who would then contact a senior member of Gramstrup's firm, who would in turn see that Gramstrup responded to the client. In late March or early April 1992, the client telephoned Mr. Gramstrup and asked about the status of the estate. Mr. Gramstrup responded with a letter in which he stated that all that remained to be done to complete the estate work was preparation of the inventory, final account, and tax returns. Mr. Gramstrup further indicated to his client that he would likely be able to complete the remaining work by June 1, 1992. Mr. Gramstrup left the firm at which he was employed in late May 1992, having failed to complete the unfinished estate work. By failing to complete the estate work, Mr. Gramstrup violated SCR 20:1.3. By failing to promptly reply to his client's reasonable requests for information about the matter, Mr. Gramstrup violated SCR 20:1.4(a).

In accordance with SCR 21.09(2), the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility does hereby publicly reprimand Attorney Chris A. Gramstrup of Superior.