|
Michael M. Cassidy, 56, of Madison, was admitted to the State Bar of Wisconsin on January 16, 1975. Atty. Cassidy was a partner in the law firm of Cassidy & Einum in Madison. From October, 1997 to April, 1998, the Board of Bar Examiners (BBE) sent Atty. Cassidy four notices or reminders regarding establishing compliance with the 1996-97 Wisconsin mandatory continuing legal education requirements, including a notice that was sent by certified mail on April 3, 1998. The return receipt for the certified correspondence was signed by a Sharon A. Newlun. On June 3, 1998, the BBE sent Atty. Cassidy a Notice of Suspension by certified mail, but no return receipt card was returned to the BBE for that mailing.
|
|
Atty. Cassidy became ineligible to practice law in Wisconsin at the close of business on June 2, 1998, because of noncompliance with 1996-97 Wisconsin mandatory continuing education requirements. Atty. Cassidy’s law license remained suspended for noncompliance with continuing education requirements until his license was reinstated on August 15, 2001.
|
|
Atty. Cassidy acknowledges that during the period of ineligibility, he engaged in the practice of law by taking the following actions:
|
|
· Atty. Cassidy represented individuals
in approximately forty real estate sales or
purchases.
|
|
· Atty. Cassidy consulted with and/or
advised individuals in approximately twelve
instances regarding general business
matters.
|
|
· Atty. Cassidy consulted with and/or
drafted wills for approximately fifteen
individuals.
|
|
· Atty. Cassidy was counsel of record
in approximately twenty circuit court or
small claims court cases, excluding probate
matters, and Atty. Cassidy made
approximately twelve personal appearances in
court, including status conferences,
approximately four small claims trials, and
two circuit court trials or hearings.
|
|
· Atty. Cassidy appeared before the
Dane County probate court and filed
documents with the court on behalf of
approximately eight individuals.
|
|
· Atty. Cassidy advised approximately
four individuals on questions concerning
workers compensation and corresponded with
the Department of Workforce Development
regarding one matter in which he had
appeared prior to the suspension of his
license.
|
|
· Atty. Cassidy advised individuals
and/or prepared documents in approximately
six landlord/tenant matters.
|
|
· Atty. Cassidy advised approximately
twenty other individuals on various matters
for which no records were kept.
|
|
During the period in which Atty. Cassidy’s license was suspended, he volunteered as a Mock Trials judge in February and/or March in each year, and he also served in three or four instances as a volunteer mediator through the Dane County Bar Association.
|
|
On Wednesday, July 4, 2001, the Wisconsin State Journal printed an article reporting that Atty. Cassidy had practiced law for three years with a suspended license. The article described, in particular, Atty. Cassidy’s representation of the town of Dunkirk in a pending lawsuit against the city of Stoughton over a recent annexation. The article stated that town officials, after learning of Atty. Cassidy’s license suspension, were placed in the position of attempting to hire new counsel in the middle of the lawsuit.
|
|
The City of Stoughton and other defendants had moved to strike the Summons and Complaint and dismiss the action on grounds that the pleadings were defective because Atty. Cassidy signed and filed them while he was suspended from practicing law. The court granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice. The town of Dunkirk has hired successor counsel and has appealed the dismissal of its lawsuit challenging the annexation ordinance. The appeal is presently pending. Atty. Cassidy did not bill the town of Dunkirk for any services or disbursements after December 27, 2000, which would include all fees and disbursements for preparation and filing of the action. Atty. Cassidy settled matters with the town of Dunkirk by paying damages resulting from the dismissal of the action. The town of Dunkirk accepted that settlement and released Atty. Cassidy.
|
|
Atty. Cassidy states that he did not engage in the practice of law from July 6, 2001 to August 15, 2001. Atty. Cassidy also states that his partner, Atty. Daniel R. Einum, appeared or acted in his stead in a couple of matters between July 5 and August 15, 2001 and that the interests of Atty. Cassidy’s clients were thereby protected.
|
|
By continuing to represent clients in a variety of legal matters, including making numerous court appearances, from June 3, 1998 to July 5, 2001, during which period Atty. Cassidy’s license to practice law in Wisconsin was suspended for noncompliance with mandatory continuing legal education requirements, Atty. Cassidy violated SCR 31.10(1), which states that a lawyer shall not engage in the practice of law in Wisconsin while his or her state bar membership is suspended for noncompliance with continuing legal education requirements. SCR 31.10(1) is enforceable under the Rules of Professional Conduct through SCR 20:8.4(f), which states, “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to ... violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme court order or supreme court decision regarding the conduct of lawyers.”
|
|
In accordance with SCR 21.09(2), Atty. Michael M. Cassidy is hereby publicly reprimanded.
|