On Thursday, January 7, 1993, Atty. Colcord agreed, as a volunteer in the State Bar business assistance program, to represent an employer, at no charge, on an unemployment compensation appeal from an award of benefits to a former employee. The appeal was scheduled for hearing on Tuesday, January 12, 1993. Atty. Colcord informed the employer that she would seek a postponement of the hearing, due to a conflict with her schedule and the need to adequately prepare the case. When neither Atty. Colcord nor the employer appeared at the hearing on January 12, 1993, the appeal was dismissed. Atty. Colcord subsequently had the dismissal set aside, after notifying the agency that on January 8, 1993 she had sent a written request for a continuance and telephoned the hearing office requesting a postponement.

A new hearing was convened by telephone on March 15, 1993, during which Atty. Colcord, when called to testify, stated under oath that on January 8, 1993 she (1) had her secretary mail and fax a letter requesting a postponement using the fax number appearing on the employer's hearing notice, and (2) telephoned the hearing office and confirmed that the fax had been received and that she would be notified of a new hearing date. The hearing office manager testified under oath that there was no record of any postponement request by Atty. Colcord and that it would have been impossible for the office to have received a fax from Atty. Colcord via the fax number she said she used, because that number appeared "in error" on the Department's notice and was not connected to any fax machine.

The administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that on the basis of this testimony, Atty. Colcord's statements were not credible and, without reaching the merits of the employer's appeal, reinstated the decision in favor of the employee and filed this grievance. The ALJ's decision was subsequently upheld by the State Labor and Industry Review Commission.

Following the investigation, the Board concluded that Atty. Colcord knowingly made untrue statements to the ALJ, in violation of SCR 20:3.3(a) (1) and (4), which provide, in relevant part, that "[a] lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of fact . . . to a tribunal . . . or (4) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false," and also violated SCR 20:8.4(c), which states that "[i]t is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in conduct involving dishonesty . . . or misrepresentation."

Although the employer did not join in the grievance, the Board further found that by failing to complete the steps necessary to secure a postponement of the January 12, 1993, hearing, Atty. Colcord violated SCR 20:1.3, which states that "[a] lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." Atty. Colcord has not been subject to any prior disciplinary action.

SCR 20:1.3In accordance with SCR 21.09(2), the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility does hereby publicly reprimand Atty. Colcord, of Wausau.