OLR Compendium > Public Reprimand of Joseph L. Viney

Public Reprimand of Joseph L. Viney

2008-OLR-11

Attorney Joseph L. Viney (“Viney”), of Baraboo, Wisconsin, is an attorney licensed in the State of Wisconsin since 1977.

Viney represented a man in seeking to collect on a $28,000.00 promissory note. On July 31, 2003, Viney entered his appearance and filed a summons and complaint on behalf of the man. An answer was filed on September 30, 2003. On May 21, 2004, the court dismissed the case after finding the matter had not been diligently prosecuted. Subsequent to the defendant’s filing of an answer in the matter, Viney did not act in furtherance of his client’s interests. In the course of the investigation of the client’s grievance by the Office of Lawyer Regulation (“OLR”) Viney asserted that he learned of the 2004 dismissal of the action sometime in 2006. Viney did not inform his client of the dismissal.

In early 2006, after informal efforts at collection failed, Viney determined that he would again pursue an action in the collection matter, but he never did, explaining that he was sidetracked by health problems from July 2006 until the end of that year.

In the spring of 2007, the client informed Viney that the defendant in the original action had died. Viney and his client discussed the possibility of contacting the widow and/or making a claim against the decedent’s estate. The client was under the impression that Viney would first write the widow and then make a claim against the estate. Viney states that he informed the client he would first need to do research on the viability of pursuing collection through the widow or the decedent’s estate. In any event, Viney failed to act in furtherance of the client’s interests following the 2007 contact from the client. In correspondence to OLR, Viney stated, “I agree I have not been diligent in pursuing this matter.” In May 2008, roughly seven months after first being notified of the client’s grievance, Viney wrote to the widow and invited a discussion of the outstanding promissory note.

After the spring of 2007 contact in which the client informed Viney of the death of the adverse party, the client called Viney and left messages for the purpose of learning the status of the matter, but Viney did not respond to the inquiries. The client then filed an OLR grievance against Viney in August 2007.

Following an OLR intake evaluation of the client’s grievance, the matter was designated for formal investigation, and by letter dated October 26, 2007 OLR provided Viney with notice of the formal investigation. Consistent with the 20-day response deadline called for in SCR 22.03 (2), OLR directed Viney to submit a complete written response to the grievance no later than November 19, 2007.

Viney did not respond to the grievance by the November 19, 2007 deadline. OLR sent a second notice to Viney at his office address on December 3, 2007, by both regular first class and certified mail. A new response deadline of December 12, 2007, was established. On December 5, 2007, an agent of Viney’s signed the certified mail return receipt for the letter that was sent via certified mail. In addition, the letter that was sent by regular mail was not returned to OLR as undelivered. Viney did not respond by the December 12, 2007 deadline.

On December 19, 2007, Viney telephoned OLR in response to a call placed with his office by OLR staff earlier that same day. Viney acknowledged that his response to OLR was due and he stated he would fax his response on December 19, 2007 or December 20, 2007. As of January 2, 2008, OLR had not received a written response from Viney.

On January 2, 2008, Viney telephoned OLR in response to a call placed with his office by OLR staff earlier that same day. Viney acknowledged his response to OLR was due and he stated he would have his response to OLR by the close of business on January 4, 2008. Viney failed to file the promised response.

Having received no written response to the October 26, 2007 and December 3, 2007 letters, or as promised in phone calls on December 19, 2007 and January 2, 2008, OLR arranged for personal service of the grievance materials and notice of investigation. Personal service was accomplished on January 11, 2008. Viney was to respond within ten days of being served. Viney did not respond.

On January 29, 2008, OLR filed a motion in the Supreme Court, pursuant to SCR 22.03(4), seeking an order requiring Viney to show cause why his law license should not be suspended for willful non-cooperation with the grievance investigation.

On January 31, 2008, the Supreme Court ordered Viney to show cause, in writing, within 20 days. Viney did not file a timely written response.

On May 13, 2008, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin entered an order suspending Viney’s license to practice law based upon Viney’s failure to cooperate in the grievance investigation.

On May 13, 2008, Viney responded in writing to the Supreme Court and to OLR.

In his May 13, 2008 correspondence to the Supreme Court, Viney stated, “The undersigned has no reasonable basis to justify his failure to respond to the request of [the OLR investigator].”

On May 14, 2008, OLR filed with the Supreme Court a report concerning Viney’s response stating that Viney had responded to OLR’s investigation.

On May 19, 2008, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin entered an order reinstating Viney’s license to practice law.

By failing to timely pursue his client’s interests in the matter of the collection on the promissory note, Viney violated SCR 20:1.3, which states, “A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.”

By failing to timely inform his client of the 2004 dismissal of the action filed on behalf of the client, and by failing to respond to inquiries from the client or to otherwise keep the client informed as to case status, Viney violated former SCR 20:1.4 (a), effective prior to July 1, 2007, and current SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4), effective July 1, 2007. Former SCR 20:1.4(a) states, “A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.” Current SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4) 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 failing to provide a required written response to his client’s grievance between October 26, 2007 and May 13, 2008, notwithstanding written notice provided to Viney by regular mail on October 26, 2007; by regular and certified mail on December 3, 2007; and by personal service accomplished on January 11, 2007, leading to Viney’s temporary suspension pursuant to SCR 22.03 (4) for willful non-cooperation with the investigation, Viney violated the following Supreme Court Rules:

SCR 22.03(2), which states in part, “The respondent shall fully and fairly disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct within 20 days after being served by ordinary mail a request for a written response.”

SCR 22.03(6), which states, “In the course of the investigation, the respondent’s willful failure to provide relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish documents and the respondent’s misrepresentation in a disclosure are misconduct, regardless of the merits of the matters asserted in the grievance.”

Violations of SCR 22.03(2) and SCR 22.03(6) are enforceable under the Rules of Professional Conduct via SCR 20:8.4(h), that states, “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to … fail to cooperate in the investigation of a grievance filed with the office of lawyer regulation as required by SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b), SCR 22.03 (2), SCR 22.03(6), or SCR 22.04(1).”

Respondent has one prior private reprimand, imposed in 1991.

In accordance with SCR 22.09(3), Attorney Viney is hereby publicly reprimanded.