In October 1982, Attorney John D. Uelmen, Milwaukee, commenced a lawsuit in behalf of a male client and his wife for injuries which the male client had suffered in October 1979, while he was employed by a Rhinelander paper company, which suit was filed in Milwaukee County Circuit Court. This action involved multiple parties defendant, each of whom allegedly participated in the design, manufacture, sale or use of the paper manufacturing equipment which was involved in the client's injury. Thereafter, venue was initially transferred to Rock County, Wisconsin. Between September 1983 and February 1984, all but 2 of the 17 defendants were dismissed from this action. By stipulation in January 1984, venue was transferred to the Oneida County Circuit Court.

On October 24, 1984, Attorney Uelmen participated in a telephonic scheduling conference. Under terms of the written scheduling order, plaintiffs were to disclose their expert witnesses on or before January 31, 1985, and defendants were to conduct depositions of plaintiffs' experts no later than March 15, 1985. All amendments of pleadings and substitutions of additional parties were to be completed by April 1, 1985. A final pretrial conference was scheduled for July 26, 1985 and the trial was set for August 19, 1985 at 9:00 a.m.

The respondent attorney failed to prepare and submit his list of expert witnesses by January 31, 1985. The attorney for the defendant paper company sent letters dated February 12, 1985 and March 13, 1985 to Attorney Uelmen requesting plaintiffs' list of experts and also giving a warning that a motion to preclude Attorney Uelmen from introducing expert testimony at the trial would be filed. In an affidavit dated March 26, 1985 and filed with the trial court, one of the defendant's counsel alleged that he attempted to contact the respondent by telephone on several occasions regarding the expert witness names but that none of his phone calls were returned.

Both of the remaining defendants' attorneys filed and mailed to Attorney Uelmen motions to dismiss the plaintiffs' action which were heard by the Oneida County Circuit Judge on May 14, 1985. Neither Attorney Uelmen nor any member of his law firm appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs at this motion hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing and after arguments by counsel, the trial judge granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the case on the merits. Following their learning of this dismissal of this lawsuit, the plaintiffs and the Respondent retained an additional attorney, and, in conjunction with the respondent's law firm, he filed a motion to reopen the judgment of dismissal, which was heard by the trial judge on July 30, 1986. The client's new attorney appeared at the motion hearing along with a member of the respondent's firm. The respondent furnished an affidavit in which he stated that "due to clerical errors, the notices and correspondence in this case were misfiled and that the hearing in May 1985 was never calendared in his appointment book." Attorney Uelmen alleged that the failure to disclose the names of the expert witnesses and to make the required appearances "was due to the mistake, inadvertence and neglect of the affiant and his office."

The trial judge denied the motion to reopen the judgment upon his finding that the plaintiffs had not shown excusable neglect. Thereafter, the plaintiffs made a professional negligence claim against Attorney Uelmen and his law firm, which claim was later settled without trial.

Following the grievance investigation into this matter, which was brought to the Board's attention by the trial judge, the Board has concluded that Attorney Uelmen was guilty of seriously neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him by clients, including his failure to disclose the identity of expert witnesses, his failure to meet discovery deadlines, and his failure to respond to the correspondence and telephone calls from opposing counsel, which conduct resulted in the dismissal of the clients' lawsuit and which was in violation of SCR 20.32(3) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Attorney Uelmen was admitted to the Wisconsin Bar in June 1981 and has practiced law in the Milwaukee area since that admission, and he was not the subject of discipline prior to this incident.

In accordance with SCR 21.09(2), the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility does publicly reprimand Attorney John D. Uelmen of Milwaukee.