The first matter concerns Atty. Osicka’s representation of a man in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy action. The client had previously been divorced in Maine, and the client’s ex-wife objected to the discharge of debts created under the divorce judgment. The parties agreed that Osicka would attempt to trade real estate that the client owned in Maine in exchange for discharging certain debts. A telephone conference was held between the attorneys and the bankruptcy court judge and in accordance with that conference, opposing counsel prepared a joint Motion for Approval of Compromise and an Order. Atty. Osicka signed the joint motion on September 4, 1998 and submitted it to the court on September 9, 1998. The court executed the order on September 14, 1998.

Osicka did not send the client a copy of the motion or order, but the client did receive an unsigned copy from opposing counsel on September 8, 1998. The client immediately contacted Osicka to indicate that some of the figures in the order were in error and instructed him to not sign the motion. On September 17, 1998, the client sent Osicka figures and supporting documentation showing the errors. Osicka failed to advise the client that he had already signed the motion and that the order had already been entered. Osicka told the client that he would try to get the figures corrected.

Osicka made no attempt to promptly correct the figures. The client tried to contact Osicka numerous times to ascertain the status of his case but received no response. In February of 1999, the client contacted the court and learned that the Order had been entered five months earlier. The client thereafter reached Osicka, who then prepared an affidavit for the client’s signature and filed a Motion to Reopen the Court’s Order. The motion was summarily denied.

After the Order in Compromise had been signed by the court back in September of 1998, the ex-wife’s attorney had sent Osicka two quit claim deeds for Osicka’s client to execute pursuant to the agreement and order. Osicka did not notify the client that he had received these deeds. Osicka received four more letters from the ex-wife’s attorney threatening contempt of court charges if the client did not execute the deeds. Osicka did not respond and did not notify his client regarding the potential contempt of court charges. Eventually, the ex-wife’s attorney filed a motion to find the client in contempt. Osicka did apprise the client that the Motion to Reopen was denied and that the client had to sign the quit claim deeds. The client was found in contempt and purged the contempt by signing the quit claim deeds.

With regard to Grievance One, Atty. Osicka has engaged in the following misconduct:

In the second matter, Atty. Osicka represented a woman regarding post-divorce maintenance issues. On October 6, 1997, the client’s ex-husband filed a motion to reduce the amount of maintenance. A hearing was scheduled for October 28, 1997. Atty. Osicka had a conflict on the scheduled hearing date, and on October 17, 1997, he sent a letter to the judge requesting approximately a three-month continuance. In response, opposing counsel expressed a willingness to continue the matter for a week or two but objected to the length of the requested continuance. Osicka’s conflict was subsequently resolved when his other case settled, but Osicka again wrote to the court on October 21, 1997, indicating that he would need additional time for his expert financial witness to review documents.

The judge, who had been on vacation, did not receive any of the correspondence regarding the requested continuance until one or two working days before the scheduled hearing, and he did not respond to the requests. Atty. Osicka states that he contacted the judge’s secretary on two occasions to determine whether the judge was granting the continuance, but he was never informed that a continuance was granted. He nevertheless did not appear at the October 28, 1997 hearing. The hearing went forward without Atty. Osicka or his client present, and the judge reduced maintenance to Osicka’s client from $2,800 to $800 per month.

Atty. Osicka requested that the matter be re-opened, and a new judge was appointed who re-opened the matter and increased the monthly maintenance amount to $2,000 per month. Opposing counsel appealed that order, and Osicka filed a cross-appeal.

The Court of Appeals reversed the second trial court, questioning its authority to reopen the case. In a strongly-worded decision, the appellate court struck Osicka’s brief and dismissed his cross appeal because of what the court described as Osicka’s failure to comply with “rudimentary appellate procedure.” The appellate court noted that Osicka’s brief, while failing to challenge the trial court’s finding that he received notice of the hearing date, had mischaracterized the first hearing as being “ex parte”, had stated that Osicka had “little regard” for the presiding judge, had labeled the denial of the continuance as “outrageous”, and had stated that the judge’s denial of a continuance was made “under circumstances where Attila the Hun would have been granted a continuance.” The appellate court further found that Osicka’s brief, without any citation to authority, had argued contentions that were contrary to well-established law and contended, with no authority, “the startling proposition that our review of the economic situation is de novo.” Finally, the appellate decision noted the “vituperative tone” of Osicka’s briefs and found that Osicka’s characterizations of the first trial judge were unprofessional and violated the Standards of Courtesy and Decorum for the Courts of Wisconsin.

With regard to Grievance Two, Atty. Osicka has engaged in the following misconduct:

On September 2, 1999, a couple provided Atty. Osicka with medical records and paid him $500 to evaluate a potential medical malpractice case. The couple told Osicka that they were concerned about commencing an action relatively soon because the statute of limitations was due to expire in nine months. The couple understood that Osicka would immediately review their file and refer it to an attorney in Illinois, with whom Osicka always worked on medical malpractice cases, for evaluation.

The couple subsequently left several phone messages for Osicka to call them to try to convey the results of some additional medical tests, but Osicka did not return their calls. On October 12, 1999, they were able to reach Osicka and as a result of that conversation, grew concerned that Osicka might not intend to vigorously pursue their case. On October 14, 1999, they wrote to Osicka requesting that he immediately inform the couple regarding his plans for their lawsuit and requesting that, if he did not wish to pursue the case, he let the couple know so that they had time to seek other counsel. Osicka did not respond.

On November 24, 1999, Osicka received a letter from the Illinois attorney to whom he had referred the couple’s file for evaluation. That attorney declined to undertake the case. Because Osicka states that he would have only undertaken the couple’s case if the Illinois attorney had agreed to be involved, this decision meant that Osicka would not represent the couple. Osicka did not, however, immediately convey this decision to the couple. Osicka points to his father’s death on November 11, 1999 as a contributing factor in his failure to promptly contact the couples.

On December 13, 1999, having heard nothing further, the couple sent Osicka a certified letter demanding return of their $500 within five days and indicating that if the money was not received by December 21, 1999, they intended to file a grievance with the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility. They did not hear from Osicka by December 21, and they filed a grievance.

On December 30, 1999, Osicka wrote a letter to the couple and returned their file, including a copy of the letter he had received from the Chicago attorney dated November 24, 1999.

With regard to Grievance Three, Atty. Osicka engaged in the following misconduct:

In 1996, Atty. Osicka undertook representation of a woman regarding post- divorce custody and visitation issues. Approximately two years earlier, the client’s young son had returned from visitation with his father with burns on his body. The situation had been referred to Social Services, but no evidence had been established to show that the burns were other than accidental.

At approximately the same time as the father brought a motion to enforce his physical placement rights, Atty. Osicka brought a motion to restrict the father’s placement rights on the basis of the incident two years earlier. A hearing on both motions was scheduled for July 16, 1996. On July 12, 1996, Osicka received an opinion letter from a physician who had examined photographs of the burns and incident reports. The letter expressed the doctor’s opinion that there was no way the multiple burns were accidental and that the father should never be granted unsupervised contact with his son. Osicka also received a similar opinion from a second doctor.

Osicka indicates these doctors were not available to testify at the July 16, 1996 hearing. Osicka did subpoena the son’s treating physician, who had treated the burns and referred the matter to Social Services, but that subpoena was not served until less than an hour before the scheduled start of the hearing, creating hostility on the part of the doctor. Because the entire hearing was spent on the testimony of the court-appointed psychologist, the doctor, who made himself available by telephone, was not called to testify. The testimony of the court-appointed psychologist was unfavorable to Osicka’s client.

The psychologist’s testimony was not completed on July 16, and a second hearing date was scheduled for July 25, 1996. Osicka believed there would be yet another hearing scheduled after the July 25 hearing, but when he arrived at the July 25 hearing, the judge indicated that he intended to render a decision that day and would limit each side to 90 minutes to present their testimony, cross examination and argument. Osicka decided he could not adequately present his case in that amount of time and states he made a strategic decision to therefore not present any testimony and instead file an appeal. In accordance with that decision, no testimony or evidence was presented in support of his client’s motion.

The court denied the motion of Osicka’s client and granted the father’s motion. The court found Osicka’s client to be in contempt of court for failing to abide by an earlier placement order and sentenced her to six months in jail, with an opportunity to purge the contempt by meeting certain conditions. The order also specifically stated that Atty. Osicka had come to court unprepared, had failed to exercise available discovery and had presented absolutely no evidence to support a denial of physical placement with the father.

Osicka appealed, and over a year later the appellate court ruled that if Osicka had called available witnesses, there would have been testimony that the son was in substantial danger of potentially lethal child abuse at the hands of the father. The appellate court declined to make findings regarding why Osicka had failed to call witnesses, but ruled that the real controversy had not been fully tried and remanded the case back to the trial court. Another attorney represented the client on remand.

With regard to Grievance Four, Atty. Osicka has engaged in the following misconduct:

For all of the above misconduct, and in accordance with SCR 21.09(2), Attorney Tim Osicka is hereby publicly reprimanded.