|
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding.
Attorney's license suspended.
¶1 PER CURIAM. The Office of Lawyer
Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Crystal L.
Saltzwadel have filed a stipulation pursuant
to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.12 agreeing
that Attorney Saltzwadel's license to
practice law in Wisconsin should be suspended
for 60 days for professional misconduct she
committed in connection with five client
matters. After reviewing the matter, we
approve the stipulation, adopt the stipulated
facts and conclusions of law, and impose the
stipulated discipline. Given the
comprehensive stipulation, which avoided the
need to litigate this matter and to appoint a
referee, we impose no costs in connection
with this proceeding.
|
|
¶2 Attorney Saltzwadel was admitted to
practice law in Wisconsin in 2007. In
February 2020, this court imposed a public
reprimand upon Attorney Saltzwadel for
misconduct in six client matters, including
her failure to act with reasonable diligence
and promptness; failure to keep clients
reasonably informed about the status of their
cases and respond to requests for
information; and failure to provide the OLR
timely responses to client grievances.
Public Reprimand of Crystal L. Saltzwadel,
No. 2020-3 (electronic copy available at
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/
app/raw/003129.html).
¶3 On April 18, 2022, the OLR filed
another complaint against Attorney Saltzwadel
alleging 11 counts of misconduct in five
client matters. The misconduct in this
matter is similar to the misconduct that gave
rise to her 2020 public reprimand. Attorney
Saltzwadel failed to file a timely notice of
intent to pursue postconviction relief (NOI)
on behalf of four clients and failed to
respond to inquiries from the four clients
and others on their behalf about the status
of their cases. She also failed to
meaningfully engage with defense counsel in a
separate federal case who sought to shorten
their mutual client's time of incarceration
and she failed to provide that client with a
copy of his revocation decision.
¶4 The first two counts of misconduct
relate to Attorney Saltzwadel's
representation of A.W. In 2019, the Office
of the State Public Defender (SPD) appointed
Attorney Saltzwadel to represent A.W. in a
criminal case involving one misdemeanor and
two felonies. A.W. was found guilty of all
charges and was sentenced to three years of
initial confinement followed by two years of
extended supervision. At his sentencing
hearing, A.W. and Attorney Saltzwadel signed
a NOI, indicating that A.W. intended to seek
postconviction relief.
¶5 On March 5, 2020, Attorney Saltzwadel
sent A.W. a letter stating that she had filed
the NOI on his behalf, her representation of
him had ended, and that the SPD would appoint
him an appellate attorney. A.W. did not
receive Attorney Saltzwadel's letter,
possibly because he was moved among different
correctional facilities. However, A.W. and
his family repeatedly tried to contact
Attorney Saltzwadel by telephone regarding
his appeal. They received no response from
her.
¶6 Eventually, A.W. filed a grievance
with the OLR. In July 2020, the OLR informed
Attorney Saltzwadel of the grievance and that
it appeared no NOI had been filed on A.W.'s
behalf. Attorney Saltzwadel told the OLR she
had filed a NOI and a motion for extension of
time to file a NOI on A.W.'s behalf.
However, the copy of the document she
provided to the OLR was not file stamped by
the court. Attorney Saltzwadel said she
believed she had timely filed the NOI. That
day, Attorney Saltzwadel sent a letter to
A.W. informing him she would file his NOI
immediately. Again, A.W. did not receive
Attorney Saltzwadel's letter; he was still
moving among correctional facilities.
¶7 On August 17, 2020, the SPD received
a letter from A.W. asking for appointment of
appellate counsel for his upcoming "appeal
hearing filed by Attorney Crystal L.
Saltzwadel." On August 27, 2020, the SPD
advised A.W. that no NOI had yet been filed
on A.W.'s behalf.
¶8 On October 2, 2020, the court of
appeals received a NOI together with an
extension motion filed by Attorney Saltzwadel
on A.W.'s behalf. The court granted the
motion and retroactively extended the
deadline, permitting A.W. to file his NOI.
However, Attorney Saltzwadel was unable to
explain the discrepancy between her assertion
to the OLR that she had filed the NOI on July
7, 2020, and the court's documented receipt
of the NOI some three months later.
¶9 The next count of misconduct pertains
to Attorney Saltzwadel's representation of
S.H. On March 12, 2019, the SPD appointed
Attorney Saltzwadel to represent S.H. on two
felonies. In October 2019, S.H. was found
guilty on both felonies, and she was later
sentenced to ten years of initial confinement
followed by five years of extended
supervision. At sentencing, S.H. and
Attorney Saltzwadel signed a NOI, which
indicated S.H.'s intent to seek
postconviction relief.
¶10 After sentencing, S.H. and her mother
contacted Attorney Saltzwadel to confirm that
a NOI had been filed. Attorney Saltzwadel
claimed that a NOI had been filed and that
S.H. would hear from her appellate counsel
within 60 days.
¶11 In January 2020, S.H. learned the NOI
had not been filed. On January 10, 2020,
Attorney Saltzwadel received an email from a
supervisor at the SPD who informed Attorney
Saltzwadel that S.H. and her family had been
inquiring about appellate counsel but it
appeared no NOI had been filed. The SPD
urged Attorney Saltzwadel to file the NOI
immediately. Attorney Saltzwadel took no
steps to file a NOI for S.H. after receiving
this email.
¶12 On January 28, 2020, Attorney
Saltzwadel received a follow-up email from
the SPD. Shortly thereafter, another
attorney with the SPD filed the NOI, along
with a motion to extend the deadline for S.H.
to file an appeal. Later that same day,
Attorney Saltzwadel emailed the SPD and
claimed she did not know what had happened to
the NOI and that she had a printed copy in
her file. Attorney Saltzwadel also sent a
letter to S.H., stating that she had believed
S.H.'s NOI was filed the day of the
sentencing hearing, but she had learned this
was not the case. Attorney Saltzwadel's
letter further stated that the NOI had now
been filed, as well as a motion to extend the
deadline to file an appeal. On February 3,
2020, the court of appeals retroactively
extended the deadline, permitting S.H. to
file a NOI.
¶13 S.H. filed a grievance against
Attorney Saltzwadel and the OLR commenced an
inquiry. Attorney Saltzwadel told the OLR
that when she returned to her office after
S.H.'s sentencing hearing, she signed into
the efiling system and uploaded the NOI and
that she was "unaware that the notice was
never submitted."
¶14 The next allegations of misconduct
pertain to Attorney Saltzwadel's
representation of S.J. On September 9, 2019,
the SPD appointed Attorney Saltzwadel to
represent S.J. in three ongoing criminal
cases involving six felonies. In October
2019, S.J. was convicted of five felonies.
S.J. was sentenced to six years of initial
confinement and six years of extended
supervision. That same day, S.J. and
Attorney Saltzwadel signed a NOI for each of
the three cases, reflecting S.J.'s intent to
seek postconviction relief.
¶15 On April 12, 2020, S.J. contacted the
SPD's office expressing concern because he
had learned that Attorney Saltzwadel had not
filed the NOIs and he had received no
information about his appeal. S.J. told the
SPD that he had written to Attorney
Saltzwadel but she had not responded.
¶16 The SPD emailed Attorney Saltzwadel
on numerous occasions about S.J. Attorney
Saltzwadel told the OLR she believed she had
electronically filed the NOIs shortly after
the sentencing hearing, but had no
explanation for why they were not filed. She
claimed that she would file all three NOIs
and that she would request extensions of time
to file those documents.
¶17 On June 5, 2020, Attorney Saltzwadel
belatedly filed all three NOIs on S.J.'s
behalf, but failed to request an extension of
the filing deadline. On July 22, 2020,
another SPD attorney filed a petition for a
writ of habeas corpus on S.J.'s behalf,
alleging that Attorney Saltzwadel was
ineffective for failing to timely file the
NOIs on S.J.'s behalf, and thus successfully
obtained reinstatement of S.J.'s appellate
rights.
¶18 The next client matter in this
proceeding involves Attorney Saltzwadel's
representation of M.J. On November 13, 2019,
M.J. was convicted of two felonies and one
misdemeanor. M.J.'s trial counsel withdrew
shortly thereafter and Attorney Saltzwadel
was appointed by the SPD as successor
counsel. After sentencing, a NOI was
prepared, indicating that M.J. intended to
seek postconviction relief.
¶19 In May 2021, M.J. contacted the SPD's
office expressing concern because he had
learned his NOI had not been filed. M.J.
said he had attempted to contact Attorney
Saltzwadel personally and through third
parties, using email and voicemails, but she
had not responded.
¶20 In June 2021, the SPD contacted
Attorney Saltzwadel and informed her that
M.J.'s NOI had not been filed. Attorney
Saltzwadel said she would need to consult her
file to see what happened. In August 2021,
after several more follow-up inquiries from
the SPD, Attorney Saltzwadel replied that she
had a NOI in her file and did not know why it
was not filed with the court. On September
3, 2021, Attorney Saltzwadel told the SPD she
would file the NOI. On September 16, 2021,
Attorney Saltzwadel finally filed a NOI on
M.J.'s behalf.
¶21 On September 20, 2021, another
attorney with the SPD successfully filed a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus on
M.J.'s behalf, alleging that Attorney
Saltzwadel was ineffective for failing to
timely file the NOI and thus successfully
obtained reinstatement of M.J.'s appellate
rights.
¶22 Attorney Saltzwadel told the OLR that
immediately after the sentencing hearing, she
told M.J.'s family that the NOI had been
filed and that M.J. did not have to continue
the appeal process if he didn't want to.
Attorney Saltzwadel told the OLR she was not
aware that she had failed to successfully
file the NOI.
¶23 The final client matter at issue here
involves T.S.Y. As pertinent background, in
2011 T.S.Y. had been convicted of a felony
and sentenced to 30 months of initial
confinement followed by 48 months of extended
supervision. In 2014, T.S.Y. was convicted
of another felony and sentenced to nine
months of confinement to run consecutive to
his 2011 sentence. In January 2016, T.S.Y.
was released from prison and his term of
extended supervision began.
¶24 In July 2019, while on extended
supervision, T.S.Y. was the subject of a
traffic stop where he was found to have a
loaded firearm, drugs, drug paraphernalia,
and a large amount of cash. He had not
reported for supervision in three years. The
SPD appointed Attorney Saltzwadel to
represent T.S.Y. on criminal charges stemming
from the traffic stop and on the revocation
proceeding regarding his extended
supervision.
¶25 In November 2019, T.S.Y. was indicted
on three federal criminal charges stemming
from the July 2019 traffic stop. Federal
defense counsel was appointed to represent
T.S.Y. in the federal criminal case. Pending
state criminal charges were dismissed on
November 13, 2019.
¶26 On November 6, 2019, T.S.Y.'s
revocation hearing was held and, by order
dated November 20, 2019, T.S.Y.'s extended
supervision was revoked and he was ordered to
be confined for three years and six days.
Attorney Saltzwadel was emailed a copy of the
revocation decision that same day. T.S.Y.
had until December 5, 2019 to
administratively appeal his revocation.
¶27 Five days after the revocation
hearing, during an email exchange with the
federal defense attorney, Attorney Saltzwadel
told the federal defense attorney that she
was still awaiting T.S.Y.'s revocation
decision.
¶28 On December 2, 2019, T.S.Y. made his
initial appearance in the federal case. The
next day, his federal defense attorney sent
Attorney Saltzwadel an email asking that she
"try to pump the brakes on the revocation
decision" because the five year minimum
sentence from the federal charge would run
consecutive to any sentence imposed in the
revocation proceeding. He explained that it
was "pretty important to get this [federal
charge] addressed before the [state]
revocation decision is issued."
¶29 Minutes after receiving this email,
Attorney Saltzwadel responded, "Decision just
came. Revoked for 2 years 9 months and 22
days. We can appeal but that rarely changes
anything. I will call the PO to see if there
is anything else we can do." However,
because Attorney Saltzwadel did not disclose
that the revocation decision had actually
issued on November 20, 2019, federal defense
counsel did not know that T.S.Y.'s
administrative appeal deadline would expire
on December 5, 2019; he believed there was
still time to work something out for T.S.Y.'s
benefit.
¶30 On December 5, 2019, federal defense
counsel told T.S.Y. about his adverse
revocation decision. T.S.Y. had not known
that his revocation decision had issued some
two weeks earlier. He had not received a
copy of the decision from Attorney Saltzwadel
and had heard nothing from her after November
13, 2019, despite having left voicemails for
her.
¶31 On December 12, 2019, federal defense
counsel sent Attorney Saltzwadel the
following email:
I left you a VM. Please get back to me
on
this. I've discussed with the federal
prosecutor the possibility of having
[T.S.Y.'s] revocation dropped if he resolves
this case. They are open to the idea. This
would be a favorable outcome, but seeing that
the deadline on the administrative appeal is
next week Monday or Tuesday, time is of the
essence. Please provide me with the name and
contact info for [T.S.Y.'s] agent.
Attorney Saltzwadel never responded to this
email. In late 2020, T.S.Y. entered into a
plea agreement in which he was convicted of
one of the federal charges and the two other
charges were dismissed. He was sentenced to
nine months in prison to run concurrently
with the revocation sentence in his state
criminal matter.
¶32 During the ensuing OLR investigation,
Attorney Saltzwadel told the OLR that she
received a copy of the revocation decision
and promptly mailed a copy to T.S.Y. She
told the OLR she did not recall receiving any
voicemails from T.S.Y. or his family.
¶33 Based on all of the foregoing, the
OLR alleged and Attorney Saltzwadel has
stipulated that:
|
|
• By failing to timely submit notices of
intent to pursue postconviction relief on
behalf of A.W., S.H., S.J., and M.J., Attorney
Saltzwadel violated SCR 20:1.3 (Counts One,
Three, Four, and Six).
|
|
• By failing to respond to inquiries from
A.W., S.J., M.J., T.S.Y., and others on their
behalf about the status of their appeals,
Attorney Saltzwadel violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(4)
(Counts Two, Five, Seven, and Ten).
|
|
• By failing to meaningfully engage with
federal defense counsel for T.S.Y. in his
attempts to shorten T.S.Y.'s time of
incarceration, Attorney Saltzwadel violated SCR
20:1.3 (Count Eight).
|
|
• By failing to timely provide T.S.Y.
with a copy of his revocation decision,
Attorney Saltzwadel violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3)
(Count Nine).
|
|
• By telling federal defense counsel on
November 25, 2019 that she was still awaiting
T.S.Y.'s revocation decision and by telling
him on December 3, 2019 that the decision
"just came," Attorney Saltzwadel violated SCR
20:8.4(c) (Count Eleven).
¶34 On May 9, 2022, the OLR and Attorney
Saltzwadel filed a stipulation pursuant to
SCR 22.12 in which Attorney Saltzwadel
stipulated to each of the eleven counts set
forth in the OLR's complaint. The OLR filed
a memorandum in support of the stipulation.
¶35 In the stipulation, Attorney
Saltzwadel agrees that the facts alleged in
the OLR's complaint form a basis for the
requested discipline. She represents and
verifies that she fully understands the
ramifications should this court impose the
stipulated level of discipline; that she
fully understands her right to contest this
matter; that she fully understands her right
to consult with counsel; that her entry into
the stipulation is made knowingly and
voluntarily; and that her entry into the
stipulation represents her decision not to
contest the allegations in the complaint or
the level and type of discipline sought by
the OLR's Director. The parties assert that
the stipulation was not the result of plea
bargaining.
¶36 The parties ask this court to impose
a 60-day suspension on Attorney Saltzwadel's
law license. The OLR's memorandum in support
of the stipulation cites to three cases in
support of the recommended 60-day suspension.
In In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Theobald, 2010 WI 102, 329 Wis. 2d 1, 786
N.W.2d 834, we imposed a 60-day suspension
for two counts of misconduct in one client
matter, which included failing to take a
series of steps resulting in the dismissal of
the client's bankruptcy petition and failing
to respond to the client's inquiries
regarding the status of the bankruptcy.
Attorney Theobald's disciplinary history
included two prior public reprimands for
similar misconduct. In deeming this case
instructive, the OLR notes that Attorney
Saltzwadel also has a prior public reprimand
and her misconduct is similar to that of
Attorney Theobald, as it involves failing to
act with reasonable diligence and promptness,
failing to keep clients reasonably informed
about the status of their matters, and
failing to comply with reasonable request for
information. See also In re
Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Moldenhauer, 2016 WI
43,
369 Wis. 2d 1, 879 N.W.2d 605 (imposing a 60-
day suspension for two counts of misconduct
that included failing to act with reasonable
diligence and promptness, failing to keep
clients reasonably informed about the status
of their matters, and failing to comply with
reasonable requests for information where
Attorney Moldenhauer had previously received
a private reprimand and two public reprimands
for similar conduct).
¶37 The OLR also deems instructive In
re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Anderson,
2020 WI 82, 394 Wis. 2d 190, 950 N.W.2d 191.
There, the attorney received a 60-day
suspension for six counts of misconduct in
two client matters. His misconduct involved
failing to consult with a client about the
means by which objectives were to be
accomplished, failing to act with reasonable
diligence and promptness, failing to keep
clients reasonably informed about the status
of their matters, and failing to comply with
reasonable requests for information.
Attorney Anderson had previously received a
private reprimand, two public reprimands, and
a 60-day suspension. The OLR argues that the
Anderson case is similar to Attorney
Saltzwadel's as it involves failing to act
with reasonable diligence and promptness,
failing to keep clients reasonably informed
about the status of their matters, and
failing to comply with reasonable requests
for information.
|
|
¶38 We have some concerns that a 60-day
license suspension is inadequate for the
misconduct Attorney Saltzwadel committed in
this manner, which involves five clients and
11 counts of misconduct, including a
violation of SCR 20:8.4(c) for making
misrepresentations to another attorney
representing their mutual client. However,
we acknowledge that the OLR has advised us
that Attorney Saltzwadel has fully admitted
responsibility for her misconduct, and
convincingly espoused her understanding of
the need to avoid repeating it. The OLR
asserts that a suspension of more than 60
days is not merited here. Therefore,
although the cases cited by the OLR are not
precisely on point because of factual
differences and generally less serious
misconduct, we are persuaded that a 60-day
suspension of Attorney Saltzwadel's license
to practice law in Wisconsin is an
appropriate level of discipline for this
case.
¶39 Henceforth, we expect Attorney
Saltzwadel to demonstrate that she has a
proper understanding of and attitude toward
the standards that are imposed upon members
of the bar in this state and that she will
act in conformity with those standards.
Attorney Saltzwadel is reminded that this
court may impose progressively severe
sanctions when an attorney engages in
repeated misconduct. See, e.g., In re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Netzer,
2014
WI 7, ¶49, 352 Wis. 2d 310, 841 N.W.2d 820 ("
[t]his court has long adhered to the concept
of progressive discipline in attorney
regulatory cases.") We accept the
stipulation and impose a 60-day suspension of
Attorney Saltzwadel's license to practice law
in Wisconsin.
¶40 We turn to the issue of costs. The
OLR's complaint requested the court impose
the costs of the proceeding. However,
because this matter has been resolved by
means of a stipulation without the
appointment of a referee, we do not impose
costs upon Attorney Saltzwadel. The OLR does
not seek restitution and no restitution is
ordered.
¶41 IT IS ORDERED that the license of
Crystal L. Saltzwadel to practice law in
Wisconsin is suspended for 60-days, effective
August 9, 2022.
¶42 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Crystal L.
Saltzwadel shall comply with the provisions
of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a
person whose license to practice law in
Wisconsin has been suspended.
¶43 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance
with all conditions of this order is required
for reinstatement. See SCR 22.28(2).
|