OLR Compendium > Public Reprimand of Jeremiah Meyer-O'Day

Public Reprimand of Jeremiah Meyer-O'Day

2018-OLR 6

The Respondent, Attorney Jeremiah Meyer- O’Day (“Meyer-O’Day”), age 41, was admitted to the practice of law in Wisconsin on October 21, 2013, and practices in Lancaster, Wisconsin. This reprimand is based on Meyer-O’Day’s conduct in two separate matters.

First Matter

Meyer-O’Day is employed by the Wisconsin State Public Defender (“SPD”). Meyer-O’Day was required to pay his fiscal 2017 State Bar of Wisconsin (“State Bar”) dues and Supreme Court assessments and sign his trust account certification on the dues statement by July 1, 2016, but he did not do so.

On June 29, 2016, the State Bar received Meyer-O’Day’s Hardship Waiver Application for a waiver of State Bar dues and Supreme Court assessments, dated June 27, 2016.

The Hardship Waiver Application stated, “You will be contacted in writing regarding your waiver request. Applications must be postmarked before July 1. You will be contacted in writing by August 1.”

(Emphasis in original.).

In a July 25, 2016 letter to Meyer- O’Day, the State Bar Executive Director stated:

This letter is to inform you that your request for a hardship waiver has been received.

We regret to inform you that after reviewing the application with the President of the Bar, it was decided that your request will not be granted.

Your payment will need to be received in our office before October 31, 2016 to remain a member in good standing. If payment and trust account signature are not received before October 31 your membership will be suspended and fees will be applied to your account. A late fee will hit your account if payment is not postmarked by August 30, 2016.

A second dues statement will be mailed to you the first week of August.

(Emphasis in original.).

In early August 2016, a second dues statement was mailed to Meyer-O’Day. However, Meyer-O’Day still did not pay his fiscal 2017 State Bar dues and Supreme Court assessments and did not sign his trust account certification.

On September 26, 2016, the State Bar sent Meyer-O’Day a third dues statement, along with a letter from a State Bar Membership Manager. In the September 26, 2016 letter sent via certified mail to Meyer-O’Day, the State Bar Membership Manager stated:

We are sending this final assessment/dues statement via certified mail to tell you that there are two things you need to do to avoid suspension.

1. Pay your fiscal 2017 State Bar dues and Supreme Court Board assessments, which were due July 1, 2016.

2. Sign your trust account certification on the front of the dues statement.

Accordingly, we are sending you this letter alerting you that you will be suspended automatically if your payment and signature are not received at the State Bar office by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, October 31, 2016.

(Emphasis in original.).

In the September 26, 2016 letter sent via certified mail to Meyer-O’Day, the State Bar Membership Manager further stated: “Members suspended are required to pay the full amount owed plus a late payment fee of $50.00 and a reinstatement fee of $20.00 to regain their license. No suspended member may practice law during the period of suspension.”

The State Bar provided OLR with a copy of the September 26, 2016 letter to Meyer-O’Day and the post office tracking number and history showing that the September 26, 2016 letter and dues statement were delivered at 9:20 a.m. on October 3, 2016. The September 26, 2016 letter and dues statement were sent to Meyer-O’Day at his SPD Office.

On October 31, 2016, Meyer-O’Day’s license to practice law was administratively suspended due to his failure to pay State Bar dues and Supreme Court assessments and his failure to certify his compliance with the trust account record-keeping requirements.

On November 3, 2016, according to Meyer-O’Day, he mailed his dues and assessments, the $50.00 late fee, and his trust account certification to the State Bar.

In an April 27, 2017 letter to OLR, Meyer-O’Day stated, “My office received the notice of suspension on November 3, 2016, but I did not open and read it until the afternoon of November 4, 2016.” Meyer-O’Day further stated, “I then called the membership coordinator’s office, where I was informed that although they had in fact received my trust account certification and money order for dues and the $50 late fee, there was now a $20 reinstatement fee which was not covered by the money order, and as such, the money order was already in the mail being returned to me.”

Thereafter, Meyer-O’Day paid his dues and assessments, the late fee, and the reinstatement fee to the State Bar with his debit card. On November 8, 2016, Meyer- O’Day was reinstated from his administrative license suspension. Meyer-O’Day appeared on behalf of SPD clients in 26 criminal cases during the period of time when his license to practice law was suspended.

In the April 27, 2017 letter to OLR, Meyer-O’Day stated, “I did not at any point receive written notification that my hardship waiver application had been denied. After I received the second past-due notice in August or September, which failed to mention anything about the status of my hardship wavier application. I contacted the State Bar’s membership coordinator’s office and was finally told orally that my hardship waiver application had been denied.” Contrary to Meyer-O’Day’s statement, the State Bar provided OLR with a copy of the State Bar Executive Director’s July 25, 2016 letter to Meyer-O’Day, which stated that Meyer-O’Day’s hardship waiver application had been denied.

In the April 27, 2017 letter to OLR, Meyer-O’Day stated, “None of the past-due notices I received from the State Bar notified me that my license would be suspended if my dues along with any applicable late fees were not paid by October 31, 2016.” Contrary to Meyer- O’Day’s statement, the State Bar provided OLR with a copy of the State Bar Membership Manager’s September 26, 2016 letter sent via certified mail to Meyer-O’Day, which stated that Meyer-O’Day would be suspended automatically if his dues and assessments payment and trust account certification were not received at the State Bar office by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, October 31, 2016.

In an April 16, 2018 email to OLR, Meyer-O’Day stated that he recalled receiving a certified letter from the State Bar in the early part of October of 2016. However, Meyer-O’Day further stated, “I recall seeing that it was regarding my past due bar dues, and I further recall foolishly tossing it in the trash without fully reading it.” In previous correspondence with OLR Meyer-O’Day did not state that he failed to fully read the letters sent to him by the State Bar.

With respect to OLR’s request to Meyer-O’Day that he provide OLR with a copy of all correspondence, notices, and documents that he received from the State Bar regarding his October 31, 2016 suspension, in the April 27, 2017 letter to OLR, Meyer-O’Day stated, “I do not have all of the notices, but I have attached what I was able to locate in my office.” Meyer- O’Day further stated, “Please note that I have been unable to locate copies of my hardship waiver application as well as of most of the notices sent to me by the State Bar of Wisconsin regarding my dues for 2016.” Ultimately, OLR obtained the documents directly from the State Bar.

In or around January 2017, Meyer- O’Day’s co-worker, also a SPD attorney, learned from a SPD secretary that Meyer- O’Day’s permanent notary public commission was revoked. Thereafter, the co-worker discovered that an administrative suspension can result in the revocation of a notary license, so he contacted the State Bar to find out if Meyer-O’Day had been suspended.

In a February 20, 2017 email to the co-worker, a State Bar Member Records & Information Specialist stated that Meyer- O’Day had been suspended for nonpayment of dues on October 31, 2016, and was returned to good standing on November 8, 2016.

Shortly after receiving the February 20, 2017 email, the co-worker had a conversation with Meyer-O’Day regarding Meyer-O’Day’s administrative suspension. The co-worker secretly video recorded most of the conversation with his cell phone.

In the video-recorded conversation, with respect to the time period when Meyer- O’Day was suspended, the co-worker stated, “So you didn’t appear at all that week?” Meyer-O’Day replied, “I rescheduled everything.” The co-worker then stated, “Did you get paid?” Meyer-O’Day replied, “I took time off for most of those days.” Meyer-O’Day’s statements to the co-worker were untrue.

In the April 27, 2017 letter to OLR, Meyer-O’Day stated, “I realized that these were in fact misrepresentations shortly after the conversation with Attorney [the co-worker].” Meyer-O’Day further stated, “I regret deeply both the misrepresentations and my failure to correct them prior to formal investigations being instituted.”

In a March 22, 2017 letter to Meyer- O’Day, a SPD Deputy Secretary stated:

This is official notification of a 5 day suspension without pay for violation of the following State of Wisconsin work rule:

Work Rule #20: Failure to comply with or violating any rule, regulation or order of a professional licensing agency when the license or certification is related to the new employee’s position.

Specifically, you represented Wisconsin State Public Defender clients while your law license was suspended.”

In the March 22, 2017 letter to Meyer-O’Day, the SPD Deputy Secretary further stated, “There is a great potential for harm to the public trust and confidence in the SPD if it allows unlicensed attorneys to practice law, regardless of the reasons for the loss of license, therefore, based on the egregiousness of your misconduct a higher level of discipline is warranted.”

(Emphasis in original.).

By appearing on behalf of numerous SPD clients during a period of time when his license was suspended, Meyer-O’Day violated the following Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules:

SCR 10.03(6), which states, “Penalty for nonpayment of dues. If the annual dues or assessments of any member remain unpaid 120 days after the payment is due, the membership of the member may be suspended in the manner provided in the bylaws; and no person whose membership is so suspended for nonpayment of dues or assessments may practice law during the period of the suspension.”; and

SCR 20:1.15(i)(4), which states, “Suspension for non-compliance. The failure of a state bar member to file the certificate is grounds for automatic suspension of the member’s membership in the state bar in the same manner provided in SCR 10.03(6) for nonpayment of dues. The filing of a false certificate is unprofessional conduct and is grounds for disciplinary action.”

SCR 22.26(2), which states, “An attorney whose license to practice law is suspended or revoked or who is suspended from the practice of law may not engage in this state in the practice of law or in any law work activity customarily done by law students, law clerks, or other paralegal personnel, except that the attorney may engage in law related work in this state for a commercial employer itself not engaged in the practice of law.

SCR 10.03(6), SCR 20:1.15(i)(4), and SCR 22.26(2) are enforced under the Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys via SCR 20:8.4(f), which states, “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:…(f) violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme court order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of lawyers.”

By misrepresenting to his co-worker that he rescheduled his cases and took time off for most of the days during the period of time he was suspended, Meyer-O’Day violated SCR 20:8.4(c), which states, “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:…(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.”

By misrepresenting to OLR that he did not receive written notification from the State Bar that his hardship waiver application was denied, and that the State Bar did not notify him that his license would be suspended if his dues and assessments were not paid by October 31, 2016, Meyer-O’Day violated SCR 22.03(6), which states, “In the course of the investigation, the respondent’s willful failure to provide relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish documents and the respondent’s misrepresentation in a disclosure are misconduct, regardless of the merits of the matters asserted in the grievance.” SCR 22.03(6) is enforced under the Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys through SCR 20:8.4(h), which states, “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to fail to cooperate in the investigation of a grievance filed with the office of lawyer regulation as required by… SCR 22.03(6)…”

Second Matter

On October 23, 2014, a client hired Meyer- O’Day’s then-law firm, to have Meyer-O’Day represent her with respect to filing a civil action relating to allegations of battery, false imprisonment, and trespass. The client paid Meyer-O’Day’s then-law firm a $400 advanced fee. Meyer-O’Day resigned from the law firm in September 2015, and began working for the Wisconsin State Public Defender’s Office (“SPD”) on October 5, 2015.

Meyer-O’Day did not file a civil action on the client’s behalf. Meyer-O’Day told the client that he thought her claim was of dubious merit, but that he would conduct an investigation to see what else could be found to support her claim. He worked on that investigation on and off for the next eleven months, until he was hired by the SPD.

With respect to the client’s case file, in a letter to OLR, Meyer-O’Day stated, “I do not at this time have the case file, nor do I have any documents relating to [the client’s] case file.” Meyer-O’Day stated that he searched for the client’s case file, but has been unable to locate it. Meyer-O’Day further stated, “I am also unsure as to whether I mailed [the client] her entire file along with the draft complaint and closing letter.”

With respect to the client’s allegation that the statute of limitations has run for filing a civil action in her case, Meyer-O’Day stated that he cannot be sure without having the file, but he assumes that the statute of limitations has run based on the passage of time.

In his response to the client’s grievance, Meyer-O’Day stated, “I had been offered a job with the Office of the State Public Defender, to start on October 5, 2015. As a result, I redrafted the draft complaint I was at that point prepared to file to be a pro se complaint to provide to [the client] to either use on her own or to present to a successor attorney.” In essence, prior to the termination of the representation, Meyer-O’Day had already drafted a complaint that he was prepared to file on behalf of the client, but he did not inform her of this fact.

In his response to the client’s grievance, Meyer-O’Day stated:

I then [September 2015] mailed the draft pro se complaint along with a closing letter stating why I was terminating the representation, that a draft complaint was enclosed for her use, and that while we do not normally refund any portion of a base fee after work has begun on the representation, I would consider a partial refund if she requested one. I did not receive a response to this letter, but this is somewhat unsurprising, as I also did not notice until mid-October that I had not been getting forwarded mail from the old [Meyer- O’Day’s then-law firm’s] Madison address.

On or about September 30, 2015, Meyer-O’Day’s prior law firm’s Madison office was vacant. Meyer-O’Day further stated, “As such, I cannot confirm that the closing letter and draft complaint did not bounce back or otherwise fail in its delivery to [the client]. I do not recall whether I kept a copy of the closing letter or the draft pro se complaint with the file, and in any event, as I cannot locate said file, it would avail me nothing had I done so until and unless I can locate it.”

In mid-October 2015, even though he knew he had not been receiving forwarded mail originally directed to his prior law firm’s old Madison address, Meyer-O’Day took no action to confirm that the client actually received his purported closing letter terminating the representation, along with the draft pro se complaint.

The client called Meyer-O’Day on multiple occasions requesting information regarding the status of the case, but he did not respond to her calls. Furthermore, the client went to Meyer-O’Day’s office at his prior law firm and was informed that her messages had been forwarded to Meyer-O’Day. Meyer-O’Day still did not respond. Meyer- O’Day did not keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the case. The client’s last attempt to contact Meyer-O’Day was in or around July 2015, but Meyer-O’Day did not respond.

By failing to keep the client reasonably informed regarding the status of the case, and by failing to respond to the client’s telephone calls requesting information, Meyer- O’Day violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4), which state, “A lawyer shall…(3) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter; (4) promptly comply with reasonable requests by the client for information…”

Upon termination of the representation, by failing to provide reasonable notice to the client of the termination, and by otherwise failing to take reasonable steps to protect the client’s interests, Meyer-O’Day violated SCR 20:1.16(d), which states, “Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee or expense that has not been earned or incurred. The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to the extent permitted by other law.”

Meyer-O’Day has no prior discipline.

In accordance with SCR 22.09(3), Attorney Respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded.

Dated this 22nd day of August, 2018.