|
Attorney Cheryl Marie Gill (Gill) was
admitted to the practice of law in Wisconsin
on April 15, 1997, State Bar No. 1029503.
On February 7, 2020, the State Public
Defender (SPD) appointed Gill to represent a
man (the client) in two criminal cases
pending in the La Crosse County Circuit
Court.
On February 10, 2020, Gill sent the client a
letter notifying him that she had been
appointed to represent him in the two cases.
Other than her February 10, 2020 letter, Gill
did not send the client any other written
communications. Gill also never contacted the
correctional institution at which the client
was held to set up a telephone call or video
visit with the client.
The client sent Gill letters dated February
17, 2020, April 27, 2020, May 19, 2020,
September 1, 2020, September 2, 2020,
September 7, 2020, and October 11, 2020. In
his letters, the client provided information
to Gill that he believed was relevant to his
defense. The client also asked Gill to take
specific actions regarding his defense, to
provide the client with information and
documents related to his cases, and to set up
a telephone call with him to discuss his
cases.
While Gill doesn’t remember receiving any of
the client’s letters, he provided OLR with
copies of his letters to Gill and with carbon
copies of Department of Corrections (DOC)
Disbursement Request forms that documented
his mailings to Gill on April 27, 2020 and
May 19, 2020. The client told OLR that DOC
staff were trying to locate the Disbursement
Request forms for his other correspondence to
Gill. The Disbursement Request forms show
that the client’s letters were sent to Gill
at her office address. None of the client’s
letters were returned to him as undeliverable
or unclaimed. Gill did not respond to any of
the client’s letters.
Between February 17, 2020 and September 1,
2020, the client attempted to call Gill, but
his calls would not go through. The client
believed that Gill needed to contact the
institution to authorize the client to call
her. In his September 1, 2020 letter, the
client explained to Gill his efforts to call
her. The client also expressed frustration
that Gill hadn’t called the institution to
set up a telephone call with him and that
Gill had not responded to his prior letters.
On approximately September 29, 2020 Gill told
the court that it could schedule a plea
hearing in the client’s cases. The court
scheduled a plea/sentencing hearing for
November 18, 2020. On November 16, 2020, the
plea/sentencing hearing was rescheduled for
January 25, 2021.
Between January 25, 2021 and September 27,
2021, Gill attended five hearings or calendar
calls in the client’s cases. The client was
not produced for any of the court dates. Gill
did not communicate with the client after any
of the court dates to explain the status of
his cases.
During a January 25, 2021 hearing, Gill told
the court that she could not remember which
institution the client was in or whether the
State had made a plea offer to resolve the
client’s cases. Gill asked the court to set
the cases out for 30 days. The court set the
client’s cases for a calendar call on March
2, 2021.
On January 25, 2021, after the hearing, the
assistant district attorney prosecuting the
client’s cases sent Gill an email
communicating a plea offer to resolve the
client’s cases. The assistant district
attorney had at least one additional
discussion with Gill about the plea offer,
during which Gill was attempting to persuade
him to dismiss the client’s cases. The
assistant district attorney told Gill that he
did not intend to dismiss the cases and that
the offer he made on January 25, 2021 was the
best offer the State would make to resolve
the client’s cases. Gill never communicated
the State’s plea offer to the client, or the
assistant district attorney’s statements that
it was the best offer the State would make.
During a March 2, 2021 calendar call, Gill
asked the court to schedule another calendar
call or status conference in 30 days. The
court scheduled a calendar call for April 13,
2021. During the April 13, 2021 calendar
call, Gill told the court that it could
schedule a plea hearing. The court scheduled
a plea hearing for May 26, 2021. On May 24,
2021, the plea hearing was rescheduled for
June 25, 2021.
During the June 25, 2021 hearing, the court
stated, “Miss Gill, you have indicated it has
been difficult to talk to [the client]. Has
that changed at all in the last couple
months?” Gill responded, “It’s just difficult
sometimes to schedule inmate calls, but I
will call [the institution] today and make
another appointment to speak to him.” Gill’s
statement misrepresented that she had made
one or more prior appointments to speak with
the client. Gill asked the court to set the
cases for a calendar call. After Gill
explained that she had many trials scheduled
in July, August, and September 2021, the
court scheduled a calendar call for September
27, 2021.
On July 4, 2021, the client wrote a letter to
the regional attorney manager for the SPD’s
La Crosse Trial Division. In that letter, the
client told the SPD that Gill hadn’t
communicated with him since her February 10,
2020 letter, Gill hadn’t responded to his
letters, and Gill hadn’t contacted the
institution to set up a telephone call with
him. The client asked the SPD for documents
related to his two criminal cases and he
asked the regional attorney manager to
contact Gill to find out why Gill wasn’t
communicating with him.
On July 12, 2021, the regional office
administrator for the SPD’s La Crosse Trial
Division, sent an email to Gill, attached to
which was a copy of the client’s July 4, 2021
letter. In her email, the office
administrator told Gill that the client
seemed to be asking for a copy of all of his
discovery materials and that the
client would like Gill to set up a call with
him. Gill did not respond to the office
administrator’s email or to the client’s July
4, 2021 letter. Gill also did not schedule a
telephone call with the client.
The client filed a grievance with OLR against
Gill. On August 10, 2021, OLR contacted Gill
regarding the client’s grievance. OLR
provided Gill with a copy of the client’s
grievance, which included copies of his
letters to Gill.
During the September 27, 2021 plea hearing in
the client’s cases, Gill told the court that
she intended to file a motion to withdraw
because the client was “not happy with her
performance.” After the court stated that the
client “had a similar reaction to his prior
attorney” and that “it’s going to be very,
very difficult for a new attorney to be found
for [the client], having rejected two public
defender attorneys,” Gill failed to explain
to the court that Gill hadn’t communicated
with the client since February 10, 2020.
On September 28, 2021, the client sent a
letter to the SPD regional attorney manager,
in which he asked for copies of documents
related to several of his cases, including
the two cases for which Gill was appointed to
represent him. The client also asked, “Where
is Attorney C. Gill?”, whether Gill was still
representing him in the two cases and the
location of Gill’s files for representing
him.
On October 4, 2021, the regional attorney
manager forwarded a copy of the client’s
September 28, 2021 letter to Gill via email.
In the email, the regional attorney manager
referenced the SPD’s understanding that Gill
might be filing a motion to withdraw. She
also asked Gill about the status of the
client’s cases and the status of his files.
On October 6, 2021, legal counsel for the SPD
sent Gill an email, attached to which was a
copy of the client’s September 28, 2021
letter and a copy of an October 6, 2021
letter from the SPD’s legal counsel to the
client. In her email, SPD’s legal counsel
told Gill that the client was requesting
copies of his files. Gill never sent the
client a copy of his file materials. Gill
also did not respond to the SPD staff’s and
legal counsel’s October 2021 emails or send
the client’s file or a copy of his file
materials to the SPD.
On October 27, 2021, the SPD regional
attorney manager sent Gill an email asking if
Gill still intended to file a motion to
withdraw from her representation of the
client. On October 29, 2021, Gill filed a
written motion to withdraw with the court. In
her motion, Gill told the court that the
client had asked her to withdraw. The client
had not asked Gill to withdraw. Gill did not
send the client a copy of the motion to
withdraw or notify him that she had filed or
intended to file a motion to withdraw. The
court granted Gill’s motion on October 29,
2021. Gill did not send a copy of the court’s
order to the client.
|
|
By failing to communicate with the client after
February 10, 2020, Gill violated SCR 20:1.4(a)
(2), which states, “A lawyer shall…reasonably
consult with the client about the means by
which the client’s objectives are to be
accomplished” and 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 respond to the client’s
correspondence requesting information and
documents related to the two La Crosse County
Circuit Court cases, Gill violated SCR
20:1.4(a)(4), which states, “A lawyer shall…
promptly comply with reasonable requests by the
client for information.”
|
|
By failing to communicate to the client the
State’s plea offer to resolve his criminal
cases and the State’s comments about the
unlikelihood of further plea negotiations,
Gill violated SCR 20:1.2(a), which states,
“(a) Subject to pars. (c) and (d), a lawyer
shall abide by a client’s decisions
concerning the objectives of representation
and, as required by SCR 20:1.4, shall consult
with the client as to the means by which they
are to be pursued. A lawyer may take such
action on behalf of the client as is
impliedly authorized to carry out the
representation. A lawyer shall abide by a
client’s decision whether to settle a matter.
In a criminal case or any proceeding that
could result in deprivation of liberty, the
lawyer shall abide by the client’s decision,
after consultation with the lawyer, as to a
plea to be entered, whether to waive jury
trial and whether the client will testify.”
and SCR 20:1.4(b), which states, “A lawyer
shall explain a matter to the extent
reasonably necessary to permit the client to
make informed decisions regarding the
representation.”
|
|
By failing to take reasonable steps to advance
the client’s interests in the two La Crosse
County Circuit Court cases, Gill violated SCR
20:1.3, which states, “A lawyer shall act with
reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client.”
|
|
By failing to send the client a copy of her
motion to withdraw or notice that she
intended to file a motion to withdraw, and by
failing to provide the client with a copy of
his file materials, in each instance Gill
violated SCR 20:1.16(d), which states, “Upon
termination of representation, a lawyer shall
take steps to the extent reasonably
practicable to protect a client’s interests,
such as giving reasonable notice to the
client, allowing time for employment of other
counsel, surrendering papers and property to
which the client is entitled and refunding
any advance payment of fee or expense that
has not been earned or incurred. The lawyer
may retain papers relating to the client to
the extent permitted by other law.”
|
|
By telling the La Crosse County Circuit Court
on June 25, 2021 that she would call the
client’s correctional institution and make
“another appointment” to speak to the client,
and by advising the court in her motion to
withdraw that the client had asked her to
withdraw, in each instance Gill violated SCR
20:3.3(a)(1), which states, “A lawyer shall not
knowingly…make a false statement of fact or law
to a tribunal or fail to correct a false
statement of material fact or law previously
made to the tribunal by the lawyer.”
|
|
In 2016, Gill was privately reprimanded for
violating SCR 20:8.4(b).
In accordance with SCR 22.09(3), Attorney
Cheryl Marie Gill is hereby publicly
reprimanded.
Dated this 12th day of October, 2022.
|