Atty. Terrence J. Woods, Oconto Falls, represented two clients on criminal matters. In the first representation, Woods filed a Form SM-33 indicating that the client wished to seek post-conviction relief. Woods never thereafter, however, filed a Notice of Intent to File Post-Conviction Relief or otherwise pursued an appeal, and he failed to respond to at least six inquiries from the client and two inquiries from the public defender's office regarding the status of the client's appeal. In response to the grievance, Woods asserted that he never agreed to represent the client on post-conviction matters and had not been paid to do so. The Board found, however, that pursuant to sec. 809.30(2)(a) and (b), Stats., Woods had an obligation as trial counsel to at least file the notice of intent. The Board further noted that if Woods intended to terminate his representation of the client, he was obligated to so notify the client and allow the client opportunity to obtain new counsel. The Board concluded that Woods had violated SCR 20:1.1, 20:1.3, 20:1.4(a) and 20:1.16(d) in his representation of this client.

In the second matter, Woods' other client entered a no contest plea to uttering a forged check. Thereafter, Woods says, the district attorney agreed to request a sentence within the sentencing guidelines. At the sentencing hearing, however, after indicating to the court that sentencing guidelines called for 36 to 42 months imprisonment, the district attorney asked for the "maximum" sentence. The court construed this as a request for ten years imprisonment, which sentence the court imposed. Woods filed a motion for sentence modification, which motion the trial court denied. Neither at the sentencing hearing nor the motion hearing did Woods tell the court about the district attorney's alleged agreement to request a sentence within the sentencing guidelines.

Woods appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to reconsider, which appeal was dismissed without prejudice because the trial court's decision had not been reduced to writing. Woods then wrote the trial court judge requesting that a written order be issued, but no order was forthcoming. Woods never had any further communication with the judge, never prepared a proposed order himself and never filed a writ of mandamus after telling the client that he would do so. The result was that the client remained in prison awaiting the filing of an appeal long after the client would have been released had the appeal been successful. The Board concluded that Woods' conduct violated SCR 20:1.1 and 20:1.3.

In evaluating the appropriate sanction for these violations, the Board noted that this misconduct was particularly egregious because the liberty of Attorney Woods' clients was at stake. Even though Woods had no prior discipline, therefore, the Board found that a public reprimand was appropriate.

In accordance with SCR 21.09(2) the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility does hereby publicly reprimand Atty. Terrence J. Woods.