Public Reprimand of Attorney Dennis P. Coffey

The Office of Lawyer Regulation and Attorney Dennis P. Coffey of Milwaukee, Wisconsin entered into an agreement for imposition of a public reprimand, pursuant to SCR 22.09. A Supreme Court-appointed referee approved the agreement and issued the public reprimand on December 18, 2023.

On August 15, 2015, the family of Michael Willis hired Coffey to complete a review of his 2015 armed robbery conviction for a possible withdrawal of plea or a sentence modification. Coffey was paid $3500.00. Coffey substituted for the current attorney on December 1, 2015 and filed a motion to extend time to file a post-conviction motion or a Notice of Appeal. The Court of Appeals issued an order extending the period to file either a post-conviction motion or a Notice of Appeal until February 19, 2016.

Coffey met with Willis on January 21, 2016 and continued to research issues. Coffey drafted a motion for sentence modification but did not file it. Coffey met with Willis again on August 24, 2017 and had telephone conversations with Willis on May 11, 2018, October 30, 2018, April 1, 2019 and September 28, 2021. Coffey had no documentation of any communications with Willis between April 1, 2019 and September 28, 2021. Willis sent a letter to Coffey in November 2020. Coffey failed to respond to that letter and did not communicate with Willis again until September 28, 2021. The last communication with Coffey was in February 2022. Willis filed a grievance in May 2022.

By failing to reasonably communicate with his client during a period of over two years, from April 2019 to September 2021, Coffey violated SCR 20;1.4(a), which states: “A lawyer shall: ...(2) reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished; (3) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter; (4) promptly comply with reasonable requests by the client for information; ...”

By failing to file a post-conviction motion, a Notice of Appeal or inform his client there were no issues for appeal for nearly seven years, Coffey violated SCR 20:1.3, which states: “a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.”