Peter M. Donohue represented a man in a Worker's Compensation matter that resulted from multiple back injuries he incurred while employed by the City of Milwaukee. In September 1989, the man and his wife requested Donohue to file an application for a Worker's Compensation hearing with the State of Wisconsin. After the couple tried to reach Donohue for approximately two months, Donohue misrepresented to them that he had filed for a hearing, and that they would need to wait for a hearing date to be assigned. Thereafter, the couple would attempt to reach Donohue on a monthly basis to check on the status of the hearing application. They estimated that it took weeks for Donohue to return their calls. At some point, Donohue indicated that it would take nine months to one year to obtain a hearing date. In September of 1990, Donohue referred the file to another attorney, who ultimately concluded that a hearing was unnecessary. The Board concluded that by failing to promptly comply with his client's reasonable requests for information, Donohue violated SCR 20:1.4(a). Donohue also violated SCR 20:8.4(c) when he misrepresented to the couple that he had filed for a Worker's Compensation hearing, and led him to believe that he was waiting for a hearing date to be assigned.

The same couple retained Donohue to handle a case involving a 1987 injury the man sustained in a car accident. Donohue filed the Summons and Complaint in December 1990, and a jury trial was scheduled for April 1992. Unknown to the couple, Donohue accepted opposing counsel's offer and advised the court on the trial date that the case had been settled. The action was removed from the trial calendar, but Donohue never notified the client that he accepted a settlement on his behalf. In April 1992, February 1993, April 1993 and June, 1993, Donohue informed the couple that the trial had been rescheduled. When Donohue relayed the offer to the client in August 1993, the client refused to accept it. Donohue never put the matter back on the court's calendar. The woman discovered that the case had been removed from the calendar for 15 months when she contacted the court directly. The client eventually accepted a settlement when both Donohue and successor counsel agreed to waive attorney fees.

Throughout the representation, the couple left numerous messages for Donohue in an attempt to reach him. For example, between March 1988 and August 1989, the woman called Donohue on a monthly basis for information about the matter because creditors were threatening collection actions. She sent Donohue copies of the bills, at his request, but eventually paid them herself when he took no action. Donohue would not advise them of settlement offers unless they were able to reach him and ask for an update.

The Board concluded that Donohue neglected the client's personal injury matter when he failed to put the matter back on the court's calendar, in violation of SCR 20:1.3. Donohue also failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of the matter, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a), especially when he failed to inform the client that he had settled the case. By misrepresenting to the couple on four separate occasions that the personal injury case had been postponed, when in fact he settled it without their consent, Donohue engaged in conduct involving fraud, dishonesty, deceit or misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c). Finally, by accepting a settlement offer from opposing counsel without his client's knowledge or consent, Donohue failed to abide by a client's decision concerning the objectives of representation, in violation of SCR 20:1.2(a).

In evaluating an appropriate sanction for the disciplinary violations, the Board considered that Donohue had been privately reprimanded in 1987 for neglect and failure to cooperate with the Board's investigation in a probate matter. However, the fact that the clients in the instant case were not financially harmed was also a factor that was considered.

In accordance with SCR 21.09(2), the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility does hereby publicly reprimand Peter M. Donohue of Milwaukee.