In March of 1987, James Toran, of Milwaukee, was retained by a man to represent him on charges of speeding and drunk driving. Toran filed a not guilty plea by mail and requested a jury trial. A status hearing was set before the court on June 5, 1987, requiring the personal appearance of both Toran and his client. Toran requested an adjournment due to a conflict. The status hearing was rescheduled for July 2, 1987 at 8:30 a.m. Approximately five minutes before the case was to be called, the client received a message at the courthouse to call Toran. Toran advised the client that he could not make it to the hearing on time. Toran further advised the client to make the appearance himself and to just plead not guilty. Toran did not contact the court directly regarding his inability to appear. When the client appeared without counsel, the court was very displeased and the prosecutor asked for sanctions against the attorney for failing to appear.

After the hearing, the client immediately advised Toran by letter that he was discharged as counsel and requested a refund. During the investigation of the client's grievance, Toran agreed to return $350 of the $500 retainer to the client. Toran failed to do so.

The Board concluded that by failing to make a scheduled court appearance, failing to advise the court that he would not be making the appearance, and advising his client to handle the appearance on his own, that Toran had neglected a legal matter entrusted to him, in violation of SCR 20.32(3) (currently SCR 20:1.3). The Board also determined that Toran had failed to return $350 in unearned fees, in violation of SCR 20.16(1)(c) [currently SCR 20:1.16(d)] and that this amount should be refunded to the client.

In a second matter, Toran was retained in February of 1987 by a woman who was arrested on a charge of drunk driving. She had previously met with the prosecutor and he had offered to recommend the minimum penalties if she pled to the charge. The client states that Toran told her that she had a good case, and she was prepared to go to trial. She paid Toran a $500 retainer. In anticipation of the trial, the client drove approximately 200 miles to take photographs of the area where she had been driving to use as evidence at trial, on the advice of Toran.

Toran had the trial adjourned on several occasions and then entered into a plea negotiation with the prosecutor, agreeing that his client would plead guilty to the charges and the prosecutor agreeing to recommend the minimum penalties. The court took the trial date off the calendar and scheduled a plea date for August 10, 1987. Toran had that date adjourned once more to August 24, 1987. Toran entered into the plea negotiation without the knowledge or consent of the client.

The client states that she and her mother attempted to contact Toran at his office numerous times by telephone, but he did not respond. The client understood that the Monday, August 24, 1987 court date was for trial. The client and her mother continued to try to contact Toran on the Saturday and Sunday prior to the court date. Finally, Toran called her at 2:00 p.m. on Sunday and advised her that he had made arrangements for her to plead guilty on August 24, 1987. The client states she objected to Toran having made the agreement without her knowledge, and she discharged him and decided to make the August 24, 1987 appearance on her own.

Thereafter the client and her mother scheduled a meeting with Toran at his office to discuss a refund of the retainer. Toran canceled this meeting and subsequently did not respond to telephone calls or a certified letter sent to him by the client. During the investigation of the client's grievance, Toran agreed to refund the $500 retainer. Toran failed to do so.

The Board concluded that Toran had neglected a legal matter entrusted to him and that he failed to reasonably communicate with a client, in violation of SCR 20.32(3) (currently SCR 20:1.3). The Board also found that the respondent had failed to promptly refund $500 in fees paid in advance that Toran had not earned, in violation of SCR 20.16(1)(c) [currently SCR 20:1.16(d)] and that this amount should be refunded to the client. Further, the Board found that Toran had engaged in conduct involving dishonesty or misrepresentation when he entered into a plea negotiation to plead his client guilty to charges without the client's knowledge or consent, in violation of SCR 20.04(4) [currently SCR 20:8.4(c)].

In accordance with SCR 21.09(2), the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility does hereby publicly reprimand James Toran of Milwaukee.