|
ATTORNEY disciplinary
proceeding. Attorney's license suspended.
|
|
1. PER CURIAM. We review the stipulation
filed by Attorney
Judith A. Pinchar and the Board of Attorneys
Professional Responsibility (Board) pursuant
to SCR 21.09(3m) setting forth findings of
fact and conclusions of law concerning
Attorney Pinchar's professional misconduct
for failing to cooperate with the Board's
investigation; failing to act with
reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client; failing to keep a
client reasonably informed about the status
of a matter and failing to promptly comply
with a client's reasonable request for
information; and engaging in conduct
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
misrepresentation. The parties also
stipulated to a 60-day suspension of
Attorney Pinchar's license to practice law
as a discipline for that misconduct.
|
|
2. We approve the stipulation and determine
that the seriousness of Attorney Pinchar's
misconduct warrants the suspension of her
license to practice law for 60 days.
|
|
3. Attorney Pinchar was admitted to the
practice of law in Wisconsin in 1982 and
practices in the Milwaukee area. In 1999,
she consented to a Board imposed private
reprimand for misconduct consisting of
failing either to settle a client's claim or
file suit before the statute of limitations
ran; failing to respond to the client's
attempts to contact her and failing to
inform the client that the statute of
limitations had passed; and failing to
respond to inquiries from Board staff
investigating the matter.
|
|
4. On June 16, 1999, the Board received a
letter from one of Attorney Pinchar's
clients regarding her alleged failure to
return file materials. This client had
previously filed a grievance against
Attorney Pinchar which resulted in the
private reprimand referred to above. On June
23, 1999, a Board staff investigator sent a
letter to Attorney Pinchar requesting that
she provide written confirmation that she
had given the file to the client. Attorney
Pinchar failed to respond. A second letter
was sent to Attorney Pinchar via both
certified mail and first-class mail on July
14, 1999. Attorney Pinchar received this
letter but did not respond to it. A third
letter was sent on September 23, 1999,
citing Attorney Pinchar's obligations under
the Supreme Court Rules to cooperate with
the Board and requesting a written response
within 20 days. Attorney Pinchar again did
not respond.
5. On November 9, 1999, a Notice to
Attend
Investigative Interview in the Board's
offices on November 18 was mailed to
Attorney Pinchar with the request that she
return a signed admission of service. When
no admission of service was received, the
notice was sent to a process server and
Attorney Pinchar was personally served on
November 16. Attorney Pinchar did not appear
at the appointed time on November 18. She
called the Board's office and said she would
submit a written response to the inquiry the
following morning. The promised response was
not sent. Board staff prepared an
investigative report recommending that the
Board seek a temporary suspension of
Attorney Pinchar's license based on her
failure to cooperate. That report was both
mailed and hand-delivered to Attorney
Pinchar's office. Attorney Pinchar delivered
a response to the grievance on December 3,
1999.
6. In a second matter, on September 13,
1999, the Board received a grievance from
another client alleging that Attorney
Pinchar failed to respond to that client's
attempts to contact her. On September 16,
1999, a Board staff investigator sent an
initial letter of inquiry to Attorney
Pinchar requesting a response to the
grievance within 20 days. Attorney Pinchar
failed to respond to the letter. A second
letter was sent on October 12, 1999. Again,
no response was received.
7. A Notice to Attend Investigative
Interview was personally served on Attorney
Pinchar on November 16, 1999, informing her
that she was to attend an investigative
interview in the Board's offices on November
18. Attorney Pinchar did not appear at the
appointed time but called the Board's
offices and said she would submit a written
response to this inquiry the following day
at the same time she promised to serve a
response to the Board's inquiry in the
matter involving the first client. The
promised response was not sent, and Board
staff prepared an investigative report
recommending that the Board seek a temporary
suspension of Attorney Pinchar's license
based on her failure to cooperate. That
report was both mailed and hand-delivered to
Attorney Pinchar's office on November 23,
1999.
8. In a third matter, in August of 1998,
a
man retained Attorney Pinchar to represent
his son, who had previously received a
stayed prison sentence and was placed on
probation. The son's probation was
subsequently revoked. He wanted the circuit
court to reverse the administrative decision
to revoke his probation. A petition for writ
of certiorari was filed on October 8, 1998.
A writ issued; the record was submitted by
the division of hearings and appeals; and a
briefing schedule was issued by the circuit
court on November 6, 1998.
9. Between the fall of 1998 and May
1999,
Attorney Pinchar represented to her client
that his petition was pending in Milwaukee
County Circuit Court. Her brief in support
of the petition was due in either December
1998 or January 1999. She never filed the
brief. The circuit court called Attorney
Pinchar three times in early March regarding
her failure to file a brief in support of
the petition. On March 22, 1999, the circuit
court ordered the petition dismissed for
failure to prosecute.
10. Attorney Pinchar did not inform her
client of the court's dismissal of his
petition. Instead, in May of 1999, she
communicated to him that she had filed a
brief in support of his petition and that a
decision was pending. In June of 1999, her
client's father hired another attorney. That
attorney checked the status of the petition
and learned that it had been dismissed for
failure to prosecute.
11. In the summer of 1998, the client's
wife
filed a petition for divorce in Arkansas.
The client's father retained Attorney
Pinchar to represent his son in the divorce
proceeding. Attorney Pinchar filed an
objection to the jurisdiction of the court
and an answer to the divorce petition.
Attorney Pinchar was not licensed to
practice law in Arkansas and she did not
seek admission pro hac vice. Filing the
answer while unlicensed in Arkansas and not
otherwise permitted to appear there violated
the regulation of the legal profession in
Arkansas.
12. Attorney Pinchar filed nothing
further in
the Arkansas divorce case. In April of 1999,
her client's father retained an Arkansas
attorney, who discovered that the divorce
had been granted in December 1998. The
client's father had paid Attorney Pinchar a
retainer of $1500 for her services. In June
of 1999, she refunded $1000 and told her
client's father she had reserved $500 to
assist in hiring local counsel for his son
in the divorce matter. Attorney Pinchar
neither hired local counsel nor refunded the
remaining $500.
13. On July 15, 1999, the Board received
a
grievance from the client's father and on
August 19, 1999, it received a statement
from the client indicating that he joined
his father in the grievance against Attorney
Pinchar. On August 6, 1999, a Board staff
investigator sent an initial letter of
inquiry to Attorney Pinchar requesting a
response to the grievance within 20 days.
Attorney Pinchar did not respond to this
letter. A second letter was sent on
September 2, 1999. Attorney Pinchar received
that letter but did not respond.
14. This grievance was assigned to the
Board's District 2 Professional
Responsibility Committee (PRC). An attorney
member of the PRC was assigned to
investigate the grievance. He sent a letter
to Attorney Pinchar on October 22, 1999,
asking her to contact him. Attorney Pinchar
failed to respond. The PRC investigator had
a chance meeting with Attorney Pinchar at a
courthouse during which he asked that she
contact him. In November of 1999, Attorney
Pinchar and the investigator met in his
offices to discuss the matter.
|
|
15. The parties stipulated that by failing
to
respond to letters from staff and failing to
appear at an investigative interview,
despite being personally served, and by
ultimately supplying a grievance response
only under threat of suspension, Attorney
Pinchar failed to cooperate with the
investigation of the three grievances, in
violation of SCR 21.03(4) and SCR 22.07(3)
and (4).
|
|
16. The parties also stipulated that by
failing
to take proper and timely steps to protect
her client's interest by securing local
counsel in the Arkansas divorce action,
Attorney Pinchar failed to act with
reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client, in violation of SCR
20:1.3. In addition, the parties stipulated
that by failing to inform her client that
his petition for certiorari had been
dismissed and by failing to inform him that
the divorce had been granted, Attorney
Pinchar failed to keep a client reasonably
informed about the status of a matter and
failed to promptly comply with a client's
reasonable request for information, in
violation of SCR 20:1.4(a).
|
|
17. The parties further stipulated that by
falsely informing her client that she had
filed a brief in support of the petition for
writ of certiorari and that she was awaiting
the court's decision when, in fact, she had
filed no brief and the petition had already
been dismissed, Attorney Pinchar engaged in
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit
or misrepresentation, in violation of SCR
20:8.4(c). The parties also stipulated that
by providing legal representation in an
action pending in a jurisdiction in which
she was unlicensed, and by failing to seek
permission from the court in Arkansas, or
seek admission pro hac vice, before filing
an answer on her client's behalf, Attorney
Pinchar practiced law in a jurisdiction
where doing so violates the regulation of
the legal profession in that jurisdiction,
in violation of SCR 20:5.5(a).
|
|
18. In addition to the 60-day license
suspension, the parties stipulated that
Attorney Pinchar refund the remaining $500
to the client's father.
|
|
19. We adopt the findings of fact and
conclusions of law set forth in the parties'
stipulation. Attorney Pinchar's failure to
cooperate with the Board's investigation of
the three grievances and her handling of the
petition for writ of certiorari and Arkansas
divorce action are serious failings
warranting a suspension of her license. A 60-
day suspension of her license to practice
law is appropriate discipline for her
professional misconduct.
20. IT IS ORDERED that the license of
Judith
A. Pinchar to practice law in Wisconsin is
suspended for a period of 60 days, effective
December 19, 2000.
21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Judith A.
Pinchar comply with the provisions of SCR
22.26 concerning the duties of a person
whose license to practice law in Wisconsin
has been suspended.
22. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Judith A.
Pinchar refund the remaining $500 to her
client's father within 30 days of the date
of this order. If the $500 refund is not
made within that time, the license of Judith
A. Pinchar to practice law in Wisconsin
shall remain suspended until further order
of the court.
23. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60
days
of the date of this order Judith A. Pinchar
pay to the Office of Lawyer Regulation the
costs of this proceeding. If the costs are
not paid within the time specified and
absent a showing to this court of her
inability to pay the costs within that time,
the license of Judith A. Pinchar to practice
law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended
until further order of the court.
|