|
ATTORNEY disciplinary
proceeding. Attorney's license suspended.
|
|
1. We review the recommendation of the
referee
that the license of Charles Glynn to
practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for
nine months as discipline for professional
misconduct and that the suspension be made
consecutive to the one-year license
suspension previously imposed by the court
for other professional misconduct. The
misconduct established in the instant
proceeding consisted of failing to act with
reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing clients, failing to explain
matters to the extent reasonably necessary
to permit two of those clients to make
informed decisions regarding their
representation, and failing to cooperate
with the Board of Attorneys Professional
Responsibility (Board) in its investigation
into his conduct.
|
|
2. We determine that the professional
misconduct established in this proceeding
warrants the suspension of Attorney Glynn's
license to practice law for nine months and
that it is appropriate that the suspension
be consecutive to the previous license
suspension, as Attorney Glynn has not been
reinstated to the practice of law following
the completion of that suspension on June
14, 2000. The misconduct considered in the
instant proceeding is of the same kind as
some of the misconduct for which Attorney
Glynn already has been disciplined, and if
it had been considered in the earlier
disciplinary proceeding, we would have
imposed discipline in that proceeding
similar to that resulting from our
imposition of a consecutive nine-month
license suspension in this proceeding.
3. Attorney Glynn was admitted to
practice
law in Wisconsin in 1991 and, prior to his
license suspension that commenced June 14,
1999, practiced in Milwaukee. That
suspension, which continues in effect for
the reason that Attorney Glynn has not
sought reinstatement of his license, was
imposed for misconduct that included paying
himself excessive and unauthorized fees in
two guardianship matters and attempting to
justify those payments by false itemized
statements and by documents falsely
indicating that he was reimbursing the
estates for disbursements he had made to
himself without court approval.
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Glynn,
225 Wis. 2d 202, 591 N.W.2d 606 (1999). In
the instant proceeding, Attorney Glynn
stipulated to and the referee, Attorney Rose
Marie Baron, made findings of fact
concerning the following professional
misconduct.
|
|
4. In August 1994, Attorney Glynn was
appointed
by the State Public Defender to represent a
client in post-conviction proceedings
following the client's conviction and
sentence to life in prison. Attorney Glynn
and the client agreed to appeal the
conviction and sentence, but even though he
had received the complete trial transcripts
by February 1995, Attorney Glynn did not
respond to many of the client's
communications concerning the status of the
appeal through 1997. He also did not respond
timely to two letters from the State Public
Defender encouraging him to contact the
client, who had complained about Attorney
Glynn's representation and lack of
communication.
5. Attorney Glynn did not contact the
client
until late October 1997. Believing Attorney
Glynn would continue to pursue the appeal,
as the two had discussed, and hearing
nothing from him after that discussion, the
client again asked the State Public Defender
to appoint a new attorney and filed a
grievance with the Board. Although he met
with the client thereafter, Attorney Glynn
took no further steps on the client's
behalf, and new counsel was appointed for
the client. Throughout Attorney Glynn's
representation, no notice of appeal was
filed, and the client's right to a direct
appeal thereby was jeopardized. During the
Board's investigation of the matter,
Attorney Glynn did not provide a written
response to the client's grievance or
produce his file, as the Board twice had
requested.
6. In a second matter, a client retained
Attorney Glynn in March 1997 to resolve a
construction lien dispute. In response to
the client's request, Attorney Glynn sent
him a copy of a letter he purportedly had
sent to opposing counsel in the matter,
which letter indicated a copy having been
sent to the client but which the client had
not received earlier. In fact, however,
opposing counsel had received no letter from
Attorney Glynn.
7. When the client was served with a
summons
and complaint in September 1997, Attorney
Glynn told him he had been in touch with
opposing counsel and that he should have
received the pleading. Soon thereafter,
Attorney Glynn told the client he had sent
opposing counsel copies of documents
concerning the lien, but opposing counsel
never received those documents.
8. A default judgment in the action was
entered in December 1997, but Attorney Glynn
did not inform his client of it when the
client contacted him the following month.
Indeed, Attorney Glynn then reassured the
client about the progress of the matter and
during one conversation said he was
commencing an action against the
subcontractor. Months later, the client was
able to reach Attorney Glynn, after having
left numerous telephone messages but having
received no response, and told him he would
obtain other counsel if Attorney Glynn did
not handle the matter properly. Attorney
Glynn again reassured the client, as he did
several months later when the client finally
reached him after unsuccessfully attempting
to do so for three months.
9. When the client obtained other
counsel in
August 1998, that attorney asked Attorney
Glynn to send him all of the material in the
client's file as soon as possible. That
attorney subsequently learned of the default
judgment against the client and that
Attorney Glynn had not been in contact with
opposing counsel in the lien matter as he
had represented to the client. Other than
one telephone call shortly before receiving
the April 30, 1997, letter, which he did not
receive until December 17 of that year, two
days after the default judgment had been
entered, opposing counsel had had no contact
with Attorney Glynn. During the Board's
investigation of the client's grievance in
this matter, Attorney Glynn delivered a copy
of the client's file but did not respond to
subsequent requests from the Board for
information in the matter.
10. A third matter concerned Attorney
Glynn's representation of a client in
several criminal matters pending in
different counties. Attorney Glynn appeared
at a scheduled plea hearing and sentencing
in one of those matters on January 15, 1999,
but his client was not present, which
resulted in a warrant being issued for the
client's arrest. After the client was
arrested, he appeared in circuit court on
three new criminal cases in which he was
represented by a public defender. Because it
was known that Attorney Glynn was
representing the client in other matters
pending in that court, the court attempted
to contact Attorney Glynn to ascertain
whether he was still representing the
client. Attorney Glynn did not return any of
the court's calls and did not respond to a
letter from the judge.
11. The court then sent Attorney Glynn a
notice scheduling the client's plea and
sentencing, and when he failed to appear on
that date, the court issued an order
requiring Attorney Glynn to show cause why
he should not be found in contempt. On the
return date of that order, Attorney Glynn
said that while he was in the courthouse on
another matter prior to that hearing, he had
attempted to see the judge to explain his
failure to appear and his not responding to
the court's calls and letter but did not get
an opportunity to talk with the judge.
Unsure of that explanation, the judge sent a
copy of the transcript of that hearing to
the Board, and the Board subsequently
ascertained that Attorney Glynn had not made
an appearance in another case in the
courthouse on the day he said he had
attempted to see the judge. During the
Board's investigation, Attorney Glynn never
provided the Board with a copy of his
client's files, despite several requests to
do so, and did not respond timely to two
requests from the Board for information
about his conduct in the client's matter.
|
|
12. The parties stipulated and the referee
concluded that Attorney Glynn's action and
inaction in the foregoing three matters
constituted the following professional
misconduct.
|
|
(a) His failure to pursue post-conviction
relief diligently and timely on behalf of
the client in the first matter violated SCR
20:1.3.
|
|
(b) His failure to respond to
communications from that client and to
requests from the State Public Defender and
his failure to provide any meaningful
representation after meeting with the client
in the first matter violated SCR 20:1.4(a) -
a failure to keep a client reasonably
informed as to the status of a matter and
promptly comply with reasonable requests for
information.
|
|
(c) His failure to protect the client
adequately against entry of a default
judgment in the contractor lien matter,
knowing a lawsuit was threatened, and his
failure to take necessary steps to resolve
or vacate that judgment violated SCR
20:1.3.
|
|
(d) His failure to provide the client
with a copy of a letter he had sent to
opposing counsel, to inform the client of
the status of his dealings with that counsel
regarding resolution of the lien issue, and
to communicate to his client about the entry
of a default judgment violated SCR 20:1.4
(a).
|
|
(e) His failure to appear at or make any
effort to reschedule a plea and sentencing
hearing violated SCR 20:1.3.
|
|
(f) His failure to respond to letters
from the Board and provide documents
requested in its investigation timely or at
all in each of the three matters violated
SCR 21.03(4) and 22.07(2) and (3).
|
|
13. As discipline for that professional
misconduct, the referee recommended, as the
Board and Attorney Glynn had stipulated,
that Attorney Glynn's license to practice
law be suspended for nine months,
consecutive to the one-year suspension
imposed earlier, which was to expire June
14, 2000. The referee also recommended, as
the parties had stipulated, that Attorney
Glynn be required to pay the costs of the
instant proceeding.
|
|
14. IT IS ORDERED that the license of
Charles
Glynn to practice law in Wisconsin is
suspended for nine months, commencing June
14, 2000.
15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60
days
of the date of this order Charles Glynn pay
to the Office of Lawyer Regulation the costs
of this proceeding, provided that if the
costs are not paid within the time specified
and absent a showing to this court of his
inability to pay the costs within that time,
the license of Charles Glynn to practice law
in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until
further order of the court.
16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Charles
Glynn
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26
concerning the duties of a person whose
license to practice law in Wisconsin has
been suspended.
17. WILLIAM A. BABLITCH and DAVID T.
PROSSER,
JR., JJ., did not participate.
|