In August 1986, Attorney Gregory Gramling, Jr., of Milwaukee, was retained by a male client to represent him in a claim for an undisclosed defect in the basement of a home which he had purchased in late 1985.

At a second meeting between Attorney Gramling and the client, the client delivered his purchase documents and file. The file included correspondence from the selling broker to the client and also a memo dated March 1985, which stated that the broker and seller were aware of the water leakage problem in the basement and that the building contractor was arranging repairs. Further there were repair estimates from at least two contractors containing statements as to methods to solve the leakage difficulty.

Attorney Gramling then made an on-site inspection of the client's home in the Town of Pewaukee, Waukesha County, during which he observed water stains on the basement walls from previous leakage, and he obtained photographs taken by the client shortly after his occupying the property in late 1985 which showed substantial leakage in the basement. During this meeting, Attorney Gramling requested that the client arrange for further inspection and testing of the basement area. This subsequent testing determined that the underground drain tiling had not functioned properly as a result of blockage by rubble from the original construction, resulting in the basement leakage. The testing company concluded that approximately $12,000 in repairs would be required to correct the leakage problem.

In late September or early October 1986, Attorney Gramling and the client met at the testing contractor's office to discuss the report and to determine if the contractor would be willing to testify as an expert witness in a lawsuit. Thereafter, Attorney Gramling and the client met again at which time the client paid $600.00 to the attorney as an advance on fees.

Following his legal research and evaluation, Attorney Gramling met to inform the client he believed there was a valid claim against the previous sellers and the listing broker for the defect which was known in March 1985, but not corrected. Pursuant to the client's agreement, Attorney Gramling sent certified letters to the listing and selling brokers, the former homeowner and the original building contractor, making demand for resolution of the basement leakage problem.

Attorney Gramling later stated that an attorney responded in behalf of the sellers, who had moved to Columbus, Ohio. Despite several phone calls with the sellers' attorney, Attorney Gramling was not able to reach an agreeable settlement of the claim. Additionally, the seller's attorney suggested that the clients pursue their homeowners purchase warranty, which had approximately seven years remaining.

At a further meeting between Attorney Gramling and the client in December 1986, the respondent attorney discussed the options available to the client, including the possibilities for recovery of damages and the likely substantial expenses of litigation. At the same time, he requested that the client provide copies of invoices showing cost of repairs and improvements to the home after his purchase. In early January 1987, the attorney received a list of the dollar amounts of such repairs and improvements, but no copies of invoices, from the client.

The client stated that he had attempted to communicate with Attorney Gramling by telephone numerous times in the early months of 1987, without success. The client also stated that he left at least three messages with Attorney Gramling's wife at home to request that the attorney return his calls, but the attorney failed to respond.

Thereafter, in March 1987, the client contacted another attorney who forwarded a letter requiring transmittal of the file from Attorney Gramling, at the client's request. Attorney Gramling failed to respond to the successor attorney's request or to transmit the file.

On April 7, 1987, the client filed a grievance with the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility, complaining that Attorney Gramling failed to respond to a number of telephone calls from the client as to the status of the claim. Also, he stated that he retained a successor attorney who made a request for the client's file but Attorney Gramling had failed to respond to that attorney.

Attorney Gramling failed to respond to two letter requests from the Board staff, the second of which was sent by certified mail dated May 21, 1987, following which a return receipt was sent to the Board office. On July 23, 1987, Attorney Gramling appeared at the Board office pursuant to a Notice to Appear and responded to questions by staff members.

Attorney Gramling has stated that he would not deny that the client may have attempted to telephone him at the office during early 1987, but that he does not recall that any phone calls were received at the home from the client. Further, Attorney Gramling maintained that he was ill with a serious respiratory problem in early 1987. An attorney with whom Attorney Gramling shared office space sent a letter confirming the above illness during the period from December 1986 through May 1987, which stated that the respondent attorney was absent from the office several days a week, and occasionally for an entire week with this illness.

As to the request from the successor attorney to forward his file, Attorney Gramling commented that upon his receiving such request prior to April 14, 1987, he pulled the file to copy the documents, but he misplaced these materials. Upon misplacing the file, he was too embarrassed to admit he could not locate the file after his making a diligent and prolonged search. He did not deny failing to respond to the Board's April and May 1987 letter requests. Attorney Gramling further agreed to furnish a written response to the Board's office by August 7, 1987. Finally, on August 21, 1987, he hand delivered a written response. He also attached copies of file materials and photographs, and he stated that he had sent the file to his client.

The Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility has concluded that in Attorney Gramling's failure to respond to numerous telephone inquiries from his client in January through March 1987 as to the status of the client's claim, the respondent is in violation of SCR 20.32(3) of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Board further concluded that in his failure to respond to the Board's letters of April 14, 1987 and May 21, 1987, and in his delaying his response to a third request for a written response to the client's grievance until August 21, 1987, Attorney Gramling has failed to cooperate with the Board's grievance investigation, in violation of SCR 22.07(2), of the Rules Governing Enforcement of Attorneys Professional Responsibility.

For the above misconduct, the Board has determined to impose a Public Reprimand. In its review, the Board also has considered that Attorney Gramling was publicly reprimanded by the Supreme Court in March 1983 for several instances of neglect of clients' legal matters, failure to respond to clients' inquiries concerning the status of cases, and failure to respond to inquiries by the Board following the filing of grievances.