Attorney Steven C. Davis, of Milwaukee, was retained to represent a female client in a divorce action, in October 1986. The attorney and client agreed on a total fee of $400.00 plus costs, and the client signed a retainer agreement and tendered $400.00 by the end of November 1986.

During the initial conference, the client requested that Attorney Davis not disclose her Milwaukee address to the husband, who had moved to Illinois.

The client states that Attorney Davis said that he could keep the address confidential, and that he never informed her that this would be a problem. She said that he informed her that he would publish notice of the proceedings to the husband in Illinois.

Attorney Davis said that he informed his client that such nondisclosure could be a problem, but he would see what he could do. He said that he later told her that he could not avoid disclosing her address, but that she did not terminate his services.

The client also stated that she had called Attorney Davis approximately once a month from November 1986 until November 1988, to obtain the current status of the case, but that the attorney failed to return most of her calls. She added that when she received one return call from Davis he told her that he had filed the divorce petition and had published the proper notice to the husband. In fact, she said that during one call in 1987 and another in the summer of 1988, the attorney told her he was going to attend hearings scheduled in her divorce proceedings, and that he would inform her of the result of that hearing. She said that after the first hearing, Attorney Davis told her that the judge requested he obtain more information from the husband in Illinois.

On November 15, 1988, the female client filed a grievance with the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility, alleging Attorney Davis' failure to return her phone calls or to otherwise keep her informed about his progress in her divorce matter. Also she alleged that the proceedings had been delayed over two years, despite it being a rather straightforward case involving no children or property division. She also requested that he either settle the divorce immediately or return her fee in full.

In the course of its investigation into this grievance, the Board wrote to Attorney Davis on four occasions, requesting him to respond to the allegations concerning his delay in going forward with this case and his lack of response to his client's communications. Upon his failure to respond to the above four letter notices, the Board staff personally served a notice to appear on Attorney Davis, which was returnable on March 2, 1989. At his request, this appearance was rescheduled and took place on March 16, 1989.

During this interview, Attorney Davis acknowledged that he should have filed the divorce petition, but failed to do so. He admitted that he failed to respond to a number of the client's telephone inquiries and failed to respond to the Board's four written requests for his response to the client's grievance. He also did not discuss the possibility of having a temporary hearing in the divorce proceeding with his client. He said that he recalled speaking to his client four or five times during the two year period, and he informed her he was proceeding with her case, but he had no recollection of telling her that he had filed the divorce petition or that court hearings were scheduled. A review of his client file revealed that he had no notes or time records indicating the dates or nature of his communications with the client. There were no divorce pleadings in the file.

During his appearance before the Board staff, Attorney Davis did agree to refund the client's $400 fee with interest.

Following the above grievance investigation, the Board concluded that Attorney Davis had neglected a legal matter entrusted to him by a client by failing to prepare and file a divorce petition for more than two years and by failing to adequately communicate with the client as to the status of her case despite her numerous requests for information to him, which conduct constitutes a violation of a SCR 20.32(3) and 20:1.3 and 20:1.4; that upon his stating to the client that a divorce petition had been filed, that a notice was published and that hearings had been scheduled, when he knew that none of these actions occurred, his conduct constitutes misrepresentation to his client, in violation of SCR 20.04(4) and 20:8.4(c); that his failure to respond to the Board staff's written requests for information on four occasions, constitutes failure to cooperate with the Board's investigation, in violation of SCR 22.07(2) and 21.03(4).

In an unrelated grievance matter, on May 6, 1987, a husband and wife retained Attorney Davis to represent the husband in a federal employment discrimination claim and to petition for judicial review of a denial of a State Unemployment Compensation Claim. The clients signed a retainer agreement which provided for a $200 advance fee plus contingent fees on the respective legal matters. They paid $50 toward this obligation, but failed to make the additional payment.

Thereafter, Attorney Davis filed the petition for review of the unemployment compensation claim in Milwaukee County Circuit Court and the discrimination complaint in the U. S. District Court.

Attorney Davis sent several additional billings for the balance due on the advance fee, but he was paid only $10.00 of the $150.00 balance.

On October 28, 1987, Attorney Davis sent a letter to his clients that he was obligated to represent them until he received notice of his termination, and asked that they notify him in writing if they wished to discontinue the attorney-client relationship. Also, he demanded payment of the $140.00 fee balance. Again, on December 3, 1987, the attorney advised the clients that if they wanted him to continue the representation, they should communicate in writing and also pay the billing.

The Milwaukee County Circuit Court sent a schedule requiring a brief in the client's unemployment compensation appeal by December 17, 1987.

On January 12, 1988, the circuit court dismissed this unemployment compensation appeal for Attorney Davis' failure to file a brief. On January 21, 1988, the attorney informed the court by letter that his clients had not responded to him in several months, and he requested an extension of time to file. The court issued an order reopening the appeal and giving Attorney Davis until March 7, 1988 to file his brief. Again, he wrote to his client requesting their advice concerning the appeal, and stated that if he did not hear from them in writing within seven days, he would know that they did not intend to pursue the case. On February 19, 1988, Attorney Davis filed a motion to withdraw as attorney in this unemployment compensation case on the ground that the client had failed to honor his agreement to pay fees, but on February 25, 1988, he notified the court that he was withdrawing the motion, and informed the judge that he would continue as the client's attorney. He failed to file the appellate brief by March 7, 1988, and opposing counsel so notified the court and requested dismissal of the appeal. On March 21, 1988, the judge set the matter on the dismissal calendar for April 11, 1988. On March 30, 1988, Attorney Davis informed the court that he was not aware of the briefing schedule, but that the client requested that he proceed with the case. On April 11, 1988, when no brief was filed or appearance made by Attorney Davis, the court dismissed the appeal. A notice of dismissal was sent May 12, 1988.

On September 14, 1988, the clients filed a grievance .with the Board alleging Attorney Davis' neglect of their unemployment compensation appeal. The attorney failed to respond to two letter requests by the Board staff for a written reply to this grievance. He did appear at the Board office on December 13, 1988, in response to a notice to appear, and he brought his file along with a letter reply to the grievance, dated October 26, 1988, which he stated was mailed, but had not been received.

The attorney stated that when the unemployment compensation appeal was reopened in January 1988, he commenced preparing a brief for his client, but he did not complete it because he had not received the agreed payment from his client. He stated that in examining the rules of professional conduct, he believed that he had a duty to continue his representation, despite his not being paid. However, he did not change his position regarding the brief.

The Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility has concluded that Attorney Davis' failure to file a brief in the state unemployment compensation appeal constitutes neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him by a client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3.

In imposing this public discipline, the board has noted that Attorney Davis has practiced law for ten years, and that he has had no previous discipline.

In accordance with SCR 21.09(2), the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility does publicly reprimand Attorney Steven C. Davis, of Milwaukee.