In August of 1988, a client hired Atty. A. Steven Porter regarding the possibility of filing actions against various municipal entities for removing a fence on the client's property. The client says he told Porter that he wanted the claim to be filed by September 1, 1988, prior to the upcoming sheriff's election. Porter says there was a deadline of November 10, 1988 if it was decided to file a notice of injury under sec. 893.80, Stats. The client paid Porter a $1,500 retainer and understood that he would be charged $80 per hour that would be subtracted from the retainer. There was no written fee agreement.

Porter did not file any action and did not respond to at least ten telephone calls from the client between September 2, 1988 and November 15, 1988. The client finally fired Porter and demanded return of his $1,500 retainer. When Porter failed to return the retainer, the client filed a request for fee arbitration with the State Bar's Fee Arbitration Panel. Porter refused to participate in binding arbitration, but did participate by telephone in a hearing before the Panel. The Panel found that Porter had done no work to earn any fee and ruled that Porter should return the entire $1,500 retainer to the client. Porter still did not do so.

In August of 1990, the client retained an attorney to bring a small claims action against Porter. During the pendency of that action, Porter filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy action, which stayed the proceedings. Porter listed a debt of $1,650 to the client on his bankruptcy schedules, and listed $900 of that debt as a priority claim. The client eventually received $105.61 under the bankruptcy before that action was dismissed because Porter was unable to make scheduled payments. The small claims suit was then reinstated. In November 1993, the client accepted a $500 settlement offer, and the small claims action was dismissed with prejudice. The client was charged $623.33 for his attorney's services in collecting the total of $605.61 that he received from Porter.

The client subsequently filed a grievance against Porter, and Board staff sent Porter two written requests for a response to the grievance. Porter failed to answer. The grievance was then referred to a district professional responsibility committee, and Porter did meet with the committee investigator to respond to questions. Porter told the investigator that he had deposited the client's $1,500 retainer into his trust account, and promised to produce his trust account records to show that deposit. Porter also promised to produce his time records for the period during which he represented the client. Porter subsequently failed to produce for the committee investigator either the trust account records or the time records. After the committee had acted on the grievance, however, Porter called the committee investigator to indicate that he had made an error in his previous disclosures to the committee and had, in fact, deposited the retainer into his business account rather than his trust account.

As a follow-up to the committee's report, Board staff subsequently requested Porter to provide further trust account records and other documents to Board staff. Although Porter provided in person some of the information requested by Board staff, Porter again failed to provide the requested written response and other requested information.

In an unrelated grievance, which had been filed just a few months prior to the above grievance, Porter also failed to respond to two written requests for a response. He did provide a written response after the grievance was referred to the district professional responsibility committee, and he did cooperate with the committee's investigation, which resulted in a finding of no underlying misconduct.

The Board has concluded that Atty. Porter's failure to cooperate with the investigation of the two complaints violated SCR 21.03(4) and 22.07(2); that his lack of diligence in handling the client's matter violated SCR 20:1.3; that his failure to answer numerous phone calls from his client violated 20:1.4(a); that his failure to deposit the $1,500 advance payment of fees into his trust account violated SCR 20:1.15(a); that his failure to return the unearned fees violated SCR 20:1.16(d) and 20:1.15(b); and that his failure to treat the $1,500 as trust property until there was an accounting and severance of interests violated SCR 20:1.15(d). Atty. Porter had previously received a private reprimand in 1987 for neglect of a client matter and failure to keep a client advised about the status of his case.

In accordance with SCR 21.09(2), the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility does hereby publicly reprimand Atty. A. Steven Porter of Madison.