OLR Compendium > Public Reprimand of Patricia L. Arreazola

Public Reprimand of Patricia L. Arreazola

2009-OLR-5

Attorney Trish Arreazola, of Janesville, Wisconsin, is an attorney licensed in the State of Wisconsin since 1992.

In June of 2003, the State Public Defender appointed Respondent to represent a criminal defendant in two matters pending in Dane County Circuit Court. Concurrently with the Dane County matters, the defendant faced charges arising out of Columbia County.

Following the entry of pleas in both the Dane County and Columbia County cases, a sentence credit issue arose. According to the client, he did not receive full credit for the time he served in prison. A significant gap existed between the time the client completed his sentence in Columbia County and the time he was sentenced in Dane County. The client sought service credit for the time in which he was imprisoned.

The client specifically and repeatedly requested that Respondent handle the service credit issue. While Respondent made some preliminary steps to tackle the issue, she ultimately failed to file any motion requesting service credit for her client, resulting in the State Public Defender appointing new counsel on an emergency basis to file a motion with the court and obtain a hearing on the sentence credit issue. As a consequence of Respondent’s failure to take meaningful action on behalf of her client, the client remained incarcerated months longer than his sentence required. By failing to take prompt or meaningful action to file a motion with the court and seek relief for her client, Respondent violated SCR 20:1.3, which states, “A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.”

From August of 2007 through January of 2008, the client made repeated attempts, both by telephone and by correspondence, to contact Respondent and request information relevant to his request for service credit and the status of any motions filed by Respondent. Respondent failed to respond to most of these requests for information. The one time Respondent communicated with her client, she told him that she had filed a motion for service credit with the court, which was an untrue statement. By failing to keep her client reasonably informed about the status of his matter, Respondent violated SCR 20:1.4(a), which states, in relevant part, “(a) A lawyer shall . . . (3) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of a matter; . . .”

During this same time period, Respondent’s client also made numerous requests for information regarding the status of his request for service credit and what efforts Respondent was taking to advance his claim. Respondent did not respond to most of her client’s requests for information. As indicated, the one time Respondent communicated with her client, she told him that she had filed a motion for service credit with the court, which was an untrue statement. The client thereafter corresponded directly with the State Public Defender’s Office seeking assistance in the matter. An attorney manager from the State Public Defender’s Office wrote Respondent on two occasions, January 8, 2008 and January 19, 2008, specifically requesting that Respondent address her client’s concerns and seek the appropriate relief before the court.

Respondent failed to respond adequately to her client’s as well as the attorney manager’s requests, and failed to take further action on behalf of her client, necessitating the emergency appointment of new counsel to address the service credit issue. By failing to respond to her client’s repeated requests for information regarding the status of her efforts, as well as respond to requests from the State Public Defender’s Office, Respondent violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(4), which states, in relevant part, “(a) A lawyer shall . . . (4) promptly comply with reasonable requests by the client for information . . . .”

Respondent’s persistent failure to respond to her client’s request for information regarding the service credit issue prevented her client from making informed decisions regarding his representation. Accordingly, Respondent violated SCR 20:1.4(b), which states, in relevant part, “(b) a lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.”

On one occasion in December of 2007, Respondent informed her client that she had filed a motion seeking service credit on his behalf. Respondent prepared a draft motion, but never filed the motion with the court. By misrepresenting to her client that she had filed a motion, when in fact she had not filed the motion, Respondent engaged in dishonest conduct in violation of 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.”

Respondent has no prior discipline.

In accordance with SCR 22.09, Attorney Trish Arreazola of Janesville, Wisconsin is hereby publicly reprimanded.