In approximately December 1989, Attorney Jeffrey Tefelske was retained by a woman regarding personal injuries that she had sustained in a January 1, 1987 accident. The matter was already in litigation at that time, and on December 15, 1989, Attorney Tefelske was substituted as attorney of record for her previous counsel.

The trial was set to commence on December 4, 1990, however, it was put over due to the court's heavy calendar. A new date was not set. On February 21, 1991, counsel for the defendant wrote to Attorney Tefelske, making an offer of judgment in the amount of $13,000 plus costs. Mr. Tefelske discussed the offer with his client, and she rejected it. Between approximately June 1991 and June 1992, the client made repeated efforts to contact Attorney Tefelske by telephone. Her calls were not returned.

Attorney Tefelske never attempted to obtain a new court date, and, on or about April 9, 1992, the court mailed him a notice which advised that the case would be dismissed if a continuance was not sought. Mr. Tefelske indicates that he did not receive the notice. On May 27, 1992, the client wrote to him, confirming her attempts to reach him and indicating that he had failed to contact her. During the Board's investigation, Attorney Tefelske produced a copy of a letter that responded to her letter, however, the client stated she had never received a letter. Mr. Tefelske's letter indicated that he did not recall receiving messages from her and asked her to contact him.

On June 19, 1992, the client filed a grievance with the Board, alleging that Attorney Tefelske had not responded to her calls for over a year. The Board wrote to Mr. Tefelske on June 23, 1992, requesting a response to the grievance within 20 days. There was no response to that letter, and on July 27, 1992, the Board again wrote to Attorney Tefelske. A response to that letter was hand-delivered on August 6, 1992. The response indicated that Attorney Tefelske was awaiting a new court date in the case.

On or about August 12, 1992, a second notice of the impending dismissal of the action was mailed to Attorney Tefelske, by the court. Mr. Tefelske states that he did not receive the notice.

In approximately mid-August 1992, the client contacted the Clerk of Court and learned that the court had been trying to have Attorney Tefelske set a new date. The client indicates that she met with Mr. Tefelske sometime near the end of August 1992 and advised him that the court clerk had informed her about the impending dismissal of her case. She states that Attorney Tefelske told her that he would appear in court to set a new trial date.

Attorney Tefelske did not appear in court, and the lawsuit was dismissed by the court on September 2, 1992. The client attempted to reach Mr. Tefelske approximately a week later, and, when he again failed to return her calls, she contacted the court and learned that the case had been dismissed.

On September 16, 1992, the Board wrote to Attorney Tefelske, seeking additional information regarding his handling of the case. Specifically, he was asked to indicate how long he had been waiting for a trial date and what he had done to obtain a date. A response was requested within 14 days. None was forthcoming.

The client ultimately reached Attorney Tefelske and notified him of the dismissal. He then filed a motion to reopen, which was heard and denied on October 12, 1992. He failed to notify the client of the outcome of this hearing, and he did not appeal the denial of the motion to reopen. The Statute of Limitations ran on this claim as of January 1, 1990, which effectively barred the case from being re-filed following the dismissal.

On October 19, 1992, the Board again wrote to Attorney Tefelske, seeking a response to its September 16, 1992 letter. There was no response, and a third letter was mailed to Mr. Tefelske on December 4, 1992. This letter advised that if he failed to respond within five days, he would be required to appear in the Board's offices to respond to the matter.

When no response was forthcoming, a notice requiring Attorney Tefelske to appear in the Board's offices on January 13, 1993 was served on him by certified mail. Mr. Tefelske did appear pursuant to the notice, and indicated that he could provide no good explanation for his failure to respond to the Board's letters. During the January 13, 1993 interview, the Board learned that Attorney Tefelske had not notified the client of the outcome of the October 1992 motion to reopen. He was asked to advise her of this prior to his planned move from Wisconsin to Florida in late January 1993. He failed to do so.

The Board has concluded that by his failure to pursue the client's claim following the loss of the December 1990 trial date, including his failure to seek a new court date from December 1990 to September 1992, Attorney Tefelske failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3. As a result of his lack of diligence, his client lost a claim that was worth at least $13,000. Furthermore, the client was precluded from ever pursuing the claim due to the Statute of Limitations. In addition, the Board concluded that by failing to respond to the client's calls for over a year and by failing to notify her of the outcome of the motion to reopen, Attorney Tefelske failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information and failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a). Finally, the Board concluded that Attorney Tefelske's failure to respond to three letters constituted a failure to cooperate with its investigation, in violation of SCR 22.07(3) and SCR 21.03(4).

In accordance with SCR 21.09(2), the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility does hereby publicly reprimand Attorney Jeffrey J. Tefelske, formerly of Milwaukee.