In 1986, Attorney Clay F. Teasdale of Marinette, was retained by a man to assist the man in processing a Social Security claim for disability benefits for chronic lower back pain and depression and, if necessary, to pursue the matter further through the federal court system.

After being denied benefits at the administrative level, on February 6, 1991, Attorney Teasdale filed an action on behalf of the man against the U.S. Department of Health and Social Services with the U.S. District Court seeking judicial review of the earlier decision. In June 1991, in lieu of a motion for summary judgment, Attorney Teasdale filed a motion to admit new evidence, based upon supplemental medical information not previously admitted at the administrative level. Both parties consented to have the U.S. Magistrate review the case.

On May 5, 1993, the Magistrate filed a report and recommendation that the man be denied disability benefits and that the case be dismissed. On May 26, 1993, the court issued an order adopting the report and recommendation of the Magistrate, denying the benefits and dismissing the case. Copies of the court's order were mailed by the court to Attorney Teasdale and opposing counsel.

In December 1993, the man called the Clerk of Courts office for the Eastern District of Wisconsin to inquire about the status of his case and was informed that the case had been dismissed. The man then attempted to contact Attorney Teasdale by telephone to find out what had happened with his case. Attorney Teasdale never returned the man's calls. In late December 1993, the man wrote to the court to obtain copies of the dismissal order and to inquire about his right to appeal. In January 1994, the court informed the man that the statutory time for filing an appeal had lapsed.

The man subsequently filed a grievance with the Board. Attorney Teasdale failed to provide any response or explanation relative to the Board's investigation.

The Board found that in failing to file a notice of appeal of the court's dismissal order within the required statutory time period, Attorney Teasdale failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, contrary to SCR 20:1.3.

SCR 20:1.3The Board also found that in failing to respond to the man's inquiries concerning the status of his appeal, Attorney Teasdale failed to promptly comply with a client's reasonable requests for information, contrary to SCR 20:1.4(a).

The Board further found that in failing to inform the man of the Magistrate's recommendation for denial of disability benefits and in failing to inform the man of the court's order of dismissal, Attorney Teasdale failed to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the man to make informed decisions regarding his case, contrary to SCR 20:1.4(b).

Finally, the Board concluded that in failing to provide any response or explanation regarding his conduct relative to his representation of the man, Attorney Teasdale failed to cooperate with the Board's investigation of the man's grievance, contrary to the standard under State v. Kennedy, 20 Wis. 2d 513 (1963), SCR 21.03(4) and SCR 22.07(2) and (3).

In accordance with SCR 21.09(2), the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility does hereby publicly reprimand Attorney Clay F. Teasdale, of Marinette, Wisconsin.