|
Michael Dale Lawrynk (Lawrynk) was admitted
to practice law in Wisconsin on June 19,
1995, State Bar No. 1025075. Lawrynk’s State
Bar address of record is 2711 North Mason
Street, Suite B, Appleton, Wisconsin 54914-
2100. His license is active and in good
standing.
FIRST MATTER
In October 2020, husband and wife
R.E. and T.E. (the clients) entered into a
written fee agreement for Lawrynk to
represent them as defendants in a lawsuit
regarding a real estate dispute involving a
land contract.
On November 11, 2020, Lawrynk received an
email from opposing counsel, inter alia,
setting forth his opinion regarding the
merits of his client’s partition action and
informing Lawrynk that the clients had missed
an August 2020 payment. Despite this
information contradicting the clients’ belief
that they had paid off the land contract,
Lawrynk did not inform the clients of the
email. The clients discovered the email’s
existence when they received Lawrynk’s
billing statement dated December 28, 2020,
which included an entry for Lawrynk’s review
of the email. The clients then requested a
copy of the email, which they received from
Lawrynk’s paralegal on January 4, 2021.
On April 28, 2021, the court issued a
scheduling order which established a June 1,
2021 deadline for filing a summary judgment
motion. On May 21, 2021, the clients sent
Lawrynk an email reminding him of the
upcoming deadline. On June 2, 2021, the
clients sent Lawrynk an email informing him
the deadline was missed. Lawrynk then filed a
motion for partial summary judgment on June
3, 2021. Lawrynk did not provide the clients
with the motion for partial summary judgment
before or at the time he filed it, despite
the clients having previously requested that
he provide them with drafts before he filed
anything.
Although the court denied the opposing
party’s motion to strike the partial summary
judgment motion as untimely and allowed
Lawrynk additional time to file an amended or
additional dispositive motion, Lawrynk was
sanctioned by having to pay $50 toward the
opposing party’s attorneys’ fees.
The clients sent Lawrynk emails on May 20,
May 21, June 2, and June 4, 2021 expressing
concerns about a billing statement they
received dated May 18, 2021. The clients also
sent Lawrynk emails on August 21 and August
23, 2021 expressing concerns about a billing
statement they received dated August 19,
2021. The clients then sent Lawrynk an email
on August 24, 2021 stating they have
questions about the current bill (August 19)
and last bill (May 18) and asking Lawrynk to
get back to them "this week". Although
Lawrynk charged the clients for review of
these emails, Lawrynk did not respond to
them.
On August 25, 2021, the clients sent Lawrynk
an email inquiring if he was aware of a
recent negative Google review from a former
client, which review was attached, and
stating that they are hoping it is not true.
Lawrynk responded by stating, “Of course its
not [sic] true”, and then revealed
disparaging information regarding the former
client’s case and the conduct of the former
client and her son, who was also a former
client. Lawrynk did not obtain his former
clients’ consent to share information
relating to the representation.
The clients terminated Lawrynk’s
representation on September 29, 2021 and
provided him with a termination of legal
services that they filed with the court on
that date. Lawrynk sent the clients an email
on September 30, 2021 stating, in part: "I am
the one who has to file things on your behalf
even if you fire me which you have every
right to do if you want to I still have to
file a withdrawal." The clients sent Lawrynk
additional emails on September 30, 2021
making extremely clear that they wished for
him to withdraw immediately. Lawrynk did not
file a proposed order for withdrawal until
almost a month later on October 26, 2021. An
order for withdrawal was then entered on
October 28, 2021.
|
|
By failing to promptly inform his clients about
email correspondence received from opposing
counsel and by failing to provide his clients
with a copy of a partial summary judgment
motion before or at the time it was filed,
Lawrynk violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3), which
states: “A lawyer shall […] keep the client
reasonably informed about the status of the
matter[.]”
|
|
By failing to timely file a summary judgment
motion on behalf of his clients, Lawrynk
violated SCR 20:1.3, which states: “A lawyer
shall act with reasonable diligence and
promptness in representing a client.”
|
|
By failing to promptly respond to emails from
his clients expressing concerns regarding fees,
Lawrynk violated SCR 20:1.5(b)(3), which
states: “A lawyer shall promptly respond to a
client's request for information concerning
fees and expenses.”
|
|
By sharing information with current clients
regarding the representation of former clients
without the former clients’ consent, Lawrynk
violated SCR 20:1.6(a), which states: “A lawyer
shall not reveal information relating to the
representation of a client unless the client
gives informed consent, except for disclosures
that are impliedly authorized in order to carry
out the representation, and except as stated in
pars. (b) and (c).”
|
|
By failing to promptly file a motion to
withdraw when his clients terminated his
representation, Lawrynk violated SCR
20:1.16(a)(3), which states: “Except as
stated in par. (c), a lawyer shall not
represent a client or, where representation
has commenced, shall withdraw from the
representation of a client if […] the lawyer
is discharged.”
SECOND MATTER
On the night of July 23, 2020 into July 24,
2020, Lawrynk consumed alcohol while at a
darts league event at a pub in Appleton,
Wisconsin. He left the pub in the early
morning hours and operated a motor vehicle,
which resulted in a single-vehicle accident.
Police officers were dispatched to the scene
of the accident at approximately 1:42 AM on
July 24, 2020. Upon arrival, officers made
contact with Lawrynk and an adult passenger.
Lawrynk informed officers that he was the
driver and had been drinking.
Lawrynk cooperated with performing field
sobriety tests, following which he was
arrested on suspicion of operating while
intoxicated. At the time of arrest, Lawrynk
acknowledged to an officer that he knew he
had too much to drink that night. An
evidentiary chemical test of his blood
revealed that Lawrynk had a blood alcohol
level of .218 g/100 mL.
On January 17, 2020, Lawrynk was charged with
misdemeanor counts of Operating While
Intoxicated (2nd) and Operating with a
Prohibited Alcohol Concentration (2nd) in
Outagamie County case number 2020CT000062.
On January 25, 2021, pursuant to a no contest
plea, Lawrynk was convicted of Operating
While Intoxicated (2nd). The Operating with a
Prohibited Alcohol Concentration charge was
dismissed on the prosecutor’s motion.
Lawrynk’s sentence included 40 days jail,
with 30 days stayed, and revocation of his
driver's license for a period of 14 months.
He was also ordered to undergo an AODA
assessment and pay a fine and costs.
Lawrynk did not report his conviction to the
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) or clerk of
the Supreme Court within five (5) days as
required by Supreme Court Rule 21.15(5). On
January 18, 2022, OLR staff contacted Lawrynk
to obtain information regarding his
conviction. Lawrynk responded on January 28,
2022, stating in part that he had not made
the notification because he was unaware of
the requirement to do so. Lawrynk then
provided notification of the conviction to
the clerk of the Supreme Court and OLR via a
letter dated February 4, 2022.
|
|
By engaging in conduct resulting in a
misdemeanor conviction of Operating While
Intoxicated (2nd) in Outagamie County case
number 2020CT000062, Lawrynk violated SCR
20:8.4(b), which states: “It is professional
misconduct for a lawyer to […] commit a
criminal act that reflects adversely on the
lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as
a lawyer in other respects.”
|
|
By failing to provide notice of his
conviction to OLR and the clerk of the
Supreme Court within five (5) days, Lawrynk
violated SCR 21.15(5), which states: “An
attorney found guilty or convicted of any
crime on or after July 1, 2002, shall notify
in writing the office of lawyer regulation
and the clerk of the Supreme Court within 5
days after the finding or conviction,
whichever first occurs. The notice shall
include the identity of the attorney, the
date of finding or conviction, the offenses,
and the jurisdiction. An attorney’s failure
to notify the office of lawyer regulation and
clerk of the supreme court of being found
guilty or his or her conviction is
misconduct.”
In accordance with SCR 22.09(3),
Attorney Michael Dale Lawrynk is hereby
publicly reprimanded.
Dated this 14th day of June, 2022.
|