Public Reprimand of Jared C. Redfield
2018-OLR 2
|
The Respondent, Attorney Jared C. Redfield
(“Redfield”), age 76, was admitted to the
practice of law in Wisconsin on September
16, 1985, and practices in Stevens Point,
Wisconsin. This reprimand is based on
Redfield’s conduct in three separate
matters.
On or about January 13, 2016, a client hired
Redfield to represent her in child custody
and placement matters. On or about January
20, 2016, the client paid Redfield a $2,000
advanced fee. Redfield deposited the $2,000
advanced fee directly into his business
account. The client received a receipt for
the $2,000 advanced fee payment.
On October 5, 2016, Redfield sent the client
a final invoice dated August 29, 2016, and a
copy of a Legal Services Agreement, dated
January 13, 2016. The client had never
previously received the purported Legal
Services Agreement. The client stated there
was no written fee agreement for the
representation.
Although Redfield’s Legal Services
Agreement signals an intent to comply with
the alternative placement measures for
advanced fees permitted under former SCR
20:1.15(b)(4m) and current SCR 20:1.5(g),
Redfield did not provide the agreement to
the client until after the client had
already terminated the representation.
The Legal Services Agreement was
purportedly for Redfield’s representation of
the client and was signed by Redfield.
However, the Legal Services Agreement was
not signed by the client. The Legal
Services Agreement contemplated a signature
by the client.
On July 1, 2016, Redfield filed a
Motion to Change Venue on behalf of the
client in the cases. At a July 7, 2016
motion hearing, the court granted the Motion
to Change Venue in the cases. The court
instructed Redfield to draft the order.
On July 29, 2016, an Order for
Change of Venue was filed. However, a
Wisconsin Circuit Court Access (WCCA) event
record stated, “File can not be transferred
until transmittal fee is paid by [the
client].”
With respect to the motion to change
venue, the client stated, “I was granted the
change of venue however Jared never filed
the proper paperwork to actually get the
file transferred.” The client further
stated, “Not until I told him that I had
called the originating county for myself,
which verified they had not received
anything from him, did he admit it was not
completed.”
With respect to a Motion to Change
Placement and Custody, Redfield stated that
he prepared the motion, but his legal
assistant left his employment before she had
filed the motion with the court and had it
served, unbeknownst to him. Thereafter,
Redfield and the client appeared in court
for a motion that had never in fact been
filed. When Redfield and the client
appeared in court for what they thought was
the scheduled motion hearing, the judge
informed them that no motion had been filed.
On or about August 10, 2016, the
client terminated Redfield’s representation
and hired successor counsel. On September
6, 2016, a Certificate of Transmittal
regarding the change of venue was finally
filed by successor counsel.
Redfield is the sole member of Redfield Law
Offices, LLC and he supervises and oversees
the staff. With respect to why he did not
file the necessary papers to effectuate the
change of venue after the court granted the
Motion to Change Venue, Redfield stated,
“The necessary papers to effectuate the
change of venue to Wood County were not
filed as at the time the order was received
my replacement legal assistant had just left
and work flow was necessarily interrupted
while a new search was begun.”
With respect to his law office’s policies
and procedures regarding the
responsibilities and supervision of
paralegals and nonlawyer assistants,
Redfield stated, “This is a small office.
My assistant and I discuss cases, my
assistant prepares documents and I review
them.”
|
|
|
By failing to file the necessary papers to
effectuate the transfer of the cases, after
the court granted the client’s Motion for
Change of Venue, Redfield violated SCR 20:1.3,
which states, “A lawyer shall act with
reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client.”
|
|
|
By failing to communicate to the client in
writing the scope of his representation or
the basis or rate of his fee or expenses for
which the client would be responsible; and
by failing to communicate to the client in
writing the purpose and effect of the
advanced fee that was paid to him, Redfield
violated SCR 20:1.5(b)(1), which states,
“The scope of the representation and the
basis or rate of the fee and expenses for
which the client will be responsible shall
be communicated to the client in writing,
before or within a reasonable time after
commencing the representation, except when
the lawyer will charge a regularly
represented client on the same basis or rate
as in the past. If it is reasonably
foreseeable that the total cost of
representation to the client, including
attorney’s fees, will be $1000 or less, the
communication may be oral or in writing.
Any changes in the basis or rate of the fee
or expenses shall also be communicated in
writing to the client.” and SCR 20:1.5(b)
(2), which states, “If the total cost of
representation to the client, including
attorney’s fees, is more than $1000, the
purpose and effect of any retainer or
advance fee that is paid to the lawyer shall
be communicated in writing.”
|
|
|
By failing to hold the advanced fee in
trust, without conveying to the client an
intention to use alternative fee placement
measures, Redfield violated former SCR
20:1.15(b)(4), in effect prior to July 1,
2016, which stated, “Except as provided in
par. (4m), unearned fees and advanced
payments of fees shall be held in trust
until earned by the lawyer, and withdrawn
pursuant to sub. (g)…” and current SCR
20:1.5(f), which states, “Except as provided
in SCR 20:1.5(g), unearned fees and funds
advanced by a client or 3rd party for
payment of fees shall be held in trust until
earned by the lawyer, and withdrawn pursuant
to SCR 20:1.5(h). Funds advanced by a
client or 3rd party for payment of costs
shall be held in trust until the costs are
incurred.”
|
|
|
By failing to make reasonable efforts to
establish internal policies and procedures
designed to identify and prevent filing
errors via the conduct of his paralegal
and/or legal assistant, and by failing to
have in place adequate supervisory measures,
Redfield violated, SCR 20:5.3(a) and (b),
which state, “With respect to a nonlawyer
employed or retained by or associated with a
lawyer: (a) a partner, and a lawyer who
individually or together with other lawyers
possesses comparable managerial authority in
a law firm shall make reasonable efforts to
ensure that the firm has in effect measures
giving reasonable assurance that the
person’s conduct is compatible with the
professional obligations of the lawyer; (b)
a lawyer having direct supervisory authority
over the nonlawyer shall make reasonable
efforts to ensure that the person’s conduct
is compatible with the professional
obligations of the lawyer…”
On or about December 30, 2014, a client
hired Redfield to represent him in filing a
small claims court case regarding damage to
a rental property owned by the client in
Stevens Point, Wisconsin.
On or about December 30, 2014, the client
paid Redfield a $350 advanced fee for the
representation. There was no written fee
agreement for Redfield’s representation of
the client.
In a January 15, 2015 email to Redfield’s
paralegal, the client stated, “I am curious
as to what the status is for my small claims
case? Has it been filed with the courts yet,
or is there more information required from
my end?”
In a January 15, 2015 reply email to the
client, Redfield’s paralegal stated, “It has
not been filed yet, as the attorney is
trying to get a hold of the landlord on the
other side.” The client alleged the owner
of the land that abuts the client’s property
cut down some large trees on the client’s
property without the client’s permission.
In a June 11, 2015 letter to the client,
Redfield stated, “It has been a considerable
period of time since I have heard from you.
We had previously discussed bringing a Small
Claims action.” Redfield further stated,
“If I do not hear from you in ten days, I
will be closing your file.”
In a June 17, 2015 email to Redfield, the
client stated, “Sorry I have been out of
touch for a while. I am moving forward with
data collection for my case, and have
reached out to some local tree removal
companies for quotes on stump removals. I
will be in touch as soon as I have the
quotes in hand.”
In a June 23, 2015 email to Redfield, the
client stated that he had “received a quote
for the removal of the stumps left” and
provided an itemized list of his alleged
damages, which totaled $1,962.05. The
client further stated, “Please review my
numbers, and give me a call or email at the
information below.”
Thereafter, Redfield failed to respond to
the client’s telephone calls and emails
requesting information. With respect to
whether Redfield made any attempts to
contact the client after June 23, 2015,
Redfield stated, “The last letter I wrote to
him [the client] was on June 11, 2015. I do
not have any recollection of calling him
after that.”
In a January 5, 2017 email to Redfield’s
paralegal, the client stated, “It has been a
day short of 2 years since I paid Jared $350
to arrange a small claims court case
regarding the damage to my property.” The
client further stated, “I have since called
and confirmed that this would go forward
perhaps a dozen times. I think I have been
patient long enough.”
With respect to his not returning the
client’s calls, Redfield stated, “Our
records indicate that he did call here in
November and December 2015 and February and
April 2016, and left messages.” Redfield
further stated, “I feel remorse about not
staying in current contact with [the client]
and I apologize for not returning his
calls.” Redfield further stated, “I should
have been more attentive in responding to
him.”
Ultimately, Redfield failed to file a small
claims court action on behalf of the client.
|
|
|
By failing to file the client’s small claims
court action, Redfield violated SCR 20:1.3,
which states, “A lawyer shall act with
reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client.”
By failing to respond to the client’s
telephone calls and email requesting
information, Redfield violated SCR 20:1.4(a)
(4), which states, “A lawyer shall…(4)
promptly comply with reasonable requests by
the client for information…”
On or about July 8, 2016, a client
hired Redfield to represent her in a small
claims court case against her ex-fiancée
regarding a property dispute.
On July 8, 2016, Redfield signed a
fee agreement, which stated, “Attorney will
charge a flat fee in the amount of $400,
plus $85 to be applied to the filing fee.
Representation does not begin until the
client has paid the entire flat fee.”
On July 8, 2016, the client made a payment
to Redfield in the amount of $150. On July
22, 2016, the client made a second payment
to Redfield in the amount of $335. Redfield
deposited both payments into his business
account.
The fee agreement stated, “Any costs paid in
advance will be placed in Attorney’s trust
account and disbursed as costs are actually
incurred. Advanced flat fees will be placed
in Attorney’s business account.” Redfield
did not hold in trust the $85 advanced costs
payment for the filing fee.
The client complained about Redfield’s
failure to immediately file the small claims
court case and to respond to her calls. The
client stated, “From July 22, 2016 on, [sic]
waiting patiently to hear of when my court
date would be (after being told it would
take about 2 weeks), week by week I was more
and more discouraged. After 2 weeks had gone
by I began to call Attorney Redfield’s
office to find out about the court date and
leave messages for Attorney Redfield to call
me back to discuss my case.” Redfield did
not respond to the client’s calls.
With respect to his approach at the
beginning of the representation, Redfield
stated, “Since the goal was to retrieve her
personal property and her truck, I spent
time in trying to negotiate prior to going
to court.” However, the client stated, “I
paid him to get my court date as soon as
possible, and that is what I expected.”
With respect to the client’s telephone calls
from July 22, 2016 to approximately
September 9, 2016, Redfield stated, “My
office was going through a staff change
where my legal assistant of two years left
in June and two legal assistants were hired
in succession who did not work out. There
were some delays in getting calls returned
during that time.”
Redfield did not keep the client reasonably
informed about the status of the small
claims court case and failed to promptly
respond to the client’s telephone calls
requesting information.
Ultimately, on September 13, 2016, Redfield
filed a small claims court case on behalf of
the client. Thereafter, the client decided
to drop the case against her ex-fiancée and
tried to work things out on her own. The
client asked Redfield to withdraw her
complaint.
In an October 13, 2016 letter to the Small
Claims Deputy Clerk with a copy to the
client, Redfield stated, “Please be advised
that [the client] wishes to withdraw her
complaint in this matter.”
In an October 13, 2016 letter to the client,
Redfield stated, “I have closed my file in
this matter.” Redfield also enclosed the
final bill and a copy of the fee agreement
with the letter. On October 14, 2016, the
court dismissed the client’s small claim
court case.
|
|
|
By failing to keep the client reasonably
informed regarding the status of the small
claims court case, and by failing to respond
to the client’s telephone calls requesting
information, Redfield 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…”
|
|
|
By depositing the client’s advanced costs
payment in the amount of $85 into his
business account, and thus failing to hold
the advanced costs in trust, Redfield
violated SCR 20:1.5(f), which states,
“Except as provided in SCR 20:1.5(g),
unearned fees and funds advanced by a client
or 3rd party for payment of fees shall be
held in trust until earned by the lawyer,
and withdrawn pursuant to SCR 20:1.5(h).
Funds advanced by a client or 3rd party for
payment of costs shall be held in trust
until the costs are incurred.”
Redfield received a private reprimand in
2014.
In accordance with SCR 22.09(3), Attorney
Respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded.
Dated this 15th day of January, 2018.
|
|
|
![[Image of Lady Justice]](images/header_1.gif)
![[Image of columns]](images/header_3.jpg)