Without advising the client that she was going to file an appeal, Attorney Bureta filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeals in January 2000. While she sent a copy of the Notice to the client, she did not send a cover letter with the Notice explaining the issues that she intended to raise. In April 2000, Attorney Bureta filed an appellant’s brief in which she raised two issues - a venue claim and a multiplicity claim. She did not, however, communicate with the client before filing the brief nor did she send him a copy of the brief. The client only learned that a brief had been filed in May 2000, when he received a copy of a court order granting the state’s motion for an extension to file a response brief. The client then wrote to the court regarding Attorney Bureta’s failure to communicate with him, and the Court of Appeals issued an order reminding Attorney Bureta that communication and consultation with the client were basic to effective legal representation.

In July 2000, upon learning that the client had filed with the Office of Lawyer Regulation a grievance against her, Attorney Bureta filed a Motion to Withdraw. On August 8, 2000, the Court ordered the State Public Defender to respond as to whether it would appoint new counsel for the client. Subsequently, on August 24, 2000, without prior notice to the client, Attorney Bureta filed a motion to withdraw the appellant’s brief and to substitute a no merit report as a means to withdraw as counsel. On September 8, 2000, the Court of Appeals issued an order appointing new counsel and deemed Attorney Bureta’s no merit report as withdrawn. The Court wrote, “this court is disturbed by Attorney Bureta’s decision to file a brief and then, four months later, seek to withdraw it in favor of a no merit report, particularly where the State deemed the issues sufficiently arguable to file a 27 page respondent’s brief.”

The client’s successor counsel subsequently filed a postconviction motion with the trial court to modify the client’s judgment of conviction by striking a provision that the client could not have contact with his immediate family while on parole. The trial court granted the client’s motion. Attorney Bureta never considered filing the motion and never advised the client that the trial court had lacked the authority to impose the no contact order. Further, the client’s second attorney filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals raising the same multiplicity issue that Attorney Bureta had raised in her appellate brief before she had attempted to withdraw it. In April 2002, the Court of Appeals determined that the charges against the client were multiplicitous and remanded the issue to the trial court for further proceedings.

By withdrawing the client’s appellate brief and thereby not pursing meritorious appellate issues and by failing to file a postconviction motion to modify the client’s judgment of conviction, Attorney Bureta failed to provide competent representation in violation of SCR 20:1.1. By failing to confer with the client about his appeal, Attorney Bureta failed to consult with him as to the means by which they were to pursue the objectives of the representation, in violation of SCR 20:1.2(a). By failing to speak with the client, by failing to respond to some of the client’s correspondence, and by failing to advise the client of the pleadings that she had filed on his behalf, Attorney Bureta failed to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a).

In a second matter, Attorney Bureta was appointed to represent another client on appeal of his criminal conviction in November 2000. Attorney Bureta states that she wrote to the client in December 2000, but that she did not receive a response from him. On February 1, 2001, the final transcript was produced and filed in the client’s matter. Pursuant to state statute, a defendant is required to file a notice of appeal or motion seeking postconviction relief within 60 days of the service of the transcript. Wis. Stats 809.30(2)(h). A no merit brief and notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days of the service of the transcript. Wis. Stats 809.32(2)

Attorney Bureta did not attempt to communicate with the client again until April 1, 2002, approximately fourteen months after she had received the final transcript. The client promptly replied to Attorney Bureta’s April letter and indicated that he had never received her first letter. On April 18, 2002, Attorney Bureta filed a motion to extend the deadline to file a postconviction motion or a notice of appeal. In her motion, Attorney Bureta indicated that, after she had not received a response from the client to her initial letter of December 2000, she took no further action on his case until she wrote to him again in April 2002. In an order dated May 10, 2002, the Court of Appeals expressed its concern over “the extensive delay” caused by Attorney Bureta’s failure to follow up with her first letter to the client. The Court, however, did grant Attorney Bureta an extension to file the client’s appeal. Attorney Bureta subsequently met the client who decided not to pursue an appeal.

By failing to take any action on the client’s matter from February 2001 until April 2002, Attorney Bureta failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in violation of SCR 20:1.3.

In accordance with SCR 22.09(3), Attorney Lynn M. Bureta is hereby publicly reprimanded.