In March 1988, Attorney Steven J. Luchsinger agreed to represent a client on potential claims stemming from alleged sexual harassment by the client's employer. Attorney Luchsinger and the client verbally agreed to a one-third contingent fee.

On August 10, 1988, Attorney Luchsinger filed a civil action on behalf of the client. A scheduling conference was held on January 10, 1989, during which the court set a trial date of October 18, 1989, and established deadlines for filing medical and other reports, naming expert witnesses, and completing discovery. The court also scheduled a final pretrial conference for September 26, 1989. Attorney Luchsinger did not comply with any of the deadlines established by the court in its scheduling order. He engaged in no discovery and identified no witnesses.

At the final pretrial conference, Attorney Luchsinger agreed to a stipulated dismissal of the lawsuit. Attorney Luchsinger was to prepare the stipulation within 30 days. Attorney Luchsinger had not consulted with his client regarding a possible voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit, nor had the client independently reached the decision that she wanted the action dropped.

The day after the final pretrial, Attorney Luchsinger telephoned his client and advised her to drop the lawsuit. Attorney Luchsinger did not inform the client that he had already agreed to the dismissal of her case. The client's husband, who was present with the client during the phone call and was at times a party to the conversation, informed Attorney Luchsinger that the client wanted the trial date postponed so as to allow the client time to find another lawyer. The client terminated Attorney Luchsinger's representation of her.

Following a hearing on a motion by the defendant to give effect to the previously agreed-upon dismissal of the action, the court dismissed the action without prejudice. In its order, the court stated: "That the plaintiff has failed to comply with the scheduling order of the Court entered on January 10, 1989, has failed to prosecute this case in a diligent manner; that representations were made to the Court and to defendant's attorney by the attorneys previously representing the plaintiff that this action would be dismissed."

In the period during which the client was represented by Attorney Luchsinger, the client and her husband placed numerous telephone calls to Attorney Luchsinger's office in an effort to gain information on the case. Attorney Luchsinger did not return the calls.

The Board found that by entering into a contingent fee agreement that was not in writing, Attorney Luchsinger violated SCR 20:1.5(c).

SCR 20:1.5(c)The Board further found that by failing to meet any of the discovery deadlines established by the court and by failing to pursue the lawsuit after its commencement, Attorney Luchsinger violated SCR 20:1.3, which requires a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.

The Board found that by agreeing to a stipulated dismissal of the lawsuit, without first consulting with his client, Attorney Luchsinger violated SCR 20:1.2(a), which requires a lawyer to abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation and to consult with the client as to the means by which objectives are to be pursued.

The Board further found that by failing to inform his client of the outcome of the final pretrial conference, the minutes of which indicate that the matter was settled, and by failing to respond to his client's telephonic requests for information on the case, Attorney Luchsinger 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.

Attorney Luchsinger has previously received a private reprimand.

The Board concluded that Attorney Luchsinger should be publicly reprimanded for his misconduct.