In April 1988, Attorney Hugh H. Gwin of Hudson took over representation of a woman in a divorce action pending in St. Croix County, Wisconsin. The court granted a judgment of divorce on June 27, 1988, and directed Mr. Gwin to prepare the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment.

In August 1988, upon inquiry from his client, Mr. Gwin advised that he had not been able to complete the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment because he was lacking certain necessary information from opposing counsel. In September 1988, Mr. Gwin failed to return a message left by the client, who was inquiring as to the status of the documents needed to complete the divorce. On November 2, 1988, Mr. Gwin met with his client, again discussed the lack of information necessary to complete the divorce, and advised the client that he would attempt to obtain the information that day.

Between December 1988 and June 1989, the client made numerous telephone calls to Mr. Gwin's office and wrote letters to Mr. Gwin in an attempt to bring the divorce to a conclusion, but Mr. Gwin did not return the telephone messages, nor did he respond to any written communications.

On June 8, 1989, the client telephoned the office of the St. Croix County Clerk of Court in an attempt to obtain that office's intervention in the filing of the final divorce papers. On June 8, 1989, the client also wrote to the presiding judge in the divorce action, describing the difficulties she had had in obtaining the final divorce papers, and explaining that the delay was adversely affecting her plans to remarry. On June 20, 1989, an employee of the St. Croix County Clerk of Court wrote to the client, stating that the clerk's office had contacted Mr. Gwin's opposing counsel and was informed by said counsel that all information necessary to prepare the final divorce documents had already been provided to Mr. Gwin.

On August 3, 1989, the client telephoned Mr. Gwin's office inquiring as to when the final divorce papers would be filed. The client made a similar inquiry in writing on September 9, 1989. Mr. Gwin did not return the client's call, nor did he respond to her letter.

On November 1, 1989, an employee of the St. Croix County Clerk of Court telephoned Mr. Gwin's office and was told by a secretary that Mr. Gwin would complete the divorce papers as soon as possible.

Mr. Gwin filed the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment in January 1990, approximately eighteen (18) months after the final hearing in the matter.

The Board concluded that by failing to prepare the Findings, Conclusions and Judgment in the client's divorce for a period of approximately eighteen (18) months after the final divorce hearing, Mr. Gwin violated SCR 20:1.3, which requires a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.

The Board also concluded that by failing to respond to his clients repeated requests for information, Mr. Gwin violated SCR 20:1.4(a), which requires a lawyer to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.

The Board also concluded that by repeatedly stating that his delay in preparing and filing the Findings, Conclusions and Judgment was attributable to his inability to obtain information from opposing counsel, when those statements were false, Mr. Gwin engaged in misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c), which prohibits lawyers from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.

On or about December 4, 1986, in a matter completely unrelated to his representation of the divorce client, Mr. Gwin undertook representation of a Minnesota man in a dispute with a municipality in Burnett County, Wisconsin. Mr. Gwin telephoned the chairman of the municipality's board and made demands relative to his representation of the client, and further wrote a letter to the board on December 8, 1986. On or about January 21, 1987, Mr. Gwin filed a notice of claim on behalf of the client with the municipality.

On June 4, 1987, the client, through his Minnesota counsel, made a written request for a status report on the case. Mr. Gwin did not respond to that request. On September 16, 1987, Mr. Gwin did inform his client that he had heard nothing from the municipality regarding the claim that had been filed.

On October 27, 1987, the municipality denied the client's claim, and on or about December 4, 1987, Mr. Gwin filed a civil action on the client's behalf against the municipality. On September 2, 1988, Mr. Gwin itemized the client's damages in a letter sent to a representative of the municipality's insurer.

On October 3, 1988 and November 28, 1988, the client's Minnesota counsel wrote to Mr. Gwin and requested information about the status of the case. Mr. Gwin did not reply to either letter. On December 20, 1988, the client's Minnesota counsel demanded a return of the case file within ten days. On January 17, 1989, Mr. Gwin did sign a consent to substitute attorneys in the matter.

On April 13, 1989, successor counsel wrote to Mr. Gwin and requested information from Mr. Gwin regarding the amount of Mr. Gwin's fee. Successor counsel wanted that information so it could be included in an itemization of damages and costs to be furnished to the municipality's insurer. Mr. Gwin did not respond to his successor's request.

The Board concluded that in the period between the filing of the civil action in December 1987, and the substitution of counsel in January 1989, Mr. Gwin failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness on behalf of his client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3.

The Board also concluded that Mr. Gwin failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of the case and failed to respond to repeated and reasonable requests for information, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a).

The Board also concluded that by failing to provide successor counsel with requested information, Mr. Gwin violated SCR 20:1.16(d), which requires a lawyer, upon termination of representation, to take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect the client's interests.

Mr. Gwin did not timely file his own federal and state income tax returns for tax years 1988 and 1989. The Board concluded that Mr. Gwin's failure to timely file the returns violated a standard of conduct established by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in State v. Roggensack, 19 Wis. 2d 38, 119 N.W.2d 412 (1963); State v. Wheeler, 51 Wis. 2d 129, 186 N.W.2d 327 (1971); and Disciplinary Proceedings Against Woodard, 150 Wis. 2d 594, 441 N.W.2d 750 (1989).

In accordance with SCR 21.09(2), the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility does hereby publicly reprimand Attorney Hugh H. Gwin of Hudson, Wisconsin.