|
ATTORNEY disciplinary
proceeding. Attorney's license suspended.
|
|
1. PER CURIAM. We review the stipulation
filed by Attorney
Thomas D. Baehr and the Office of Lawyer
Regulation (OLR) pursuant to SCR 22.12
setting forth findings of fact and
conclusions of law regarding Attorney
Baehr's professional misconduct in failing
to keep a client reasonably informed about
the status of a matter; willfully failing to
cooperate with OLR grievance investigations;
failing, upon termination of the
representation, to take steps to the extent
reasonably practicable to protect a client's
interest; and failing to act with reasonable
diligence and promptness in representing a
client. The parties also stipulated to a
six-month suspension of Attorney Baehr's
license to practice law and the requirement
that he make restitution of $500 to one
client as discipline for his misconduct. We
also review the report and recommendation of
the referee, Cheryl Rosen Weston, approving
the stipulation and recommending that the
discipline proposed by the parties be
accepted by the court.
|
|
2. We approve the stipulation and adopt the
stipulated facts and conclusions of law. We
also conclude that the seriousness of
Attorney Baehr's misconduct warrants the
suspension of his license to practice law
for six months, and we order that he make
restitution of $500 to one client.
|
|
3. Attorney Baehr was admitted to practice
law
in Wisconsin in 1985 and resides in Stevens
Point. On February 9, 2000, this court
ordered a 90-day suspension of Attorney
Baehr's law license effective March 20,
2000, as discipline for misconduct
consisting of failing to take any action on
behalf of an incarcerated client he was
appointed by the state public defender to
represent on appeal and on a claim of
ineffective assistance of previous counsel,
failing to communicate in any way with that
client, and failing to respond to numerous
requests for information from the former
Board of Attorneys Professional
Responsibility and the Board's district
investigative committee concerning his
conduct in the client's matter. See
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Baehr,
2000 WI 8, 232 Wis. 2d 606, 605 N.W.2d 523.
|
|
4. On February 22, 2001, this court
temporarily
suspended Attorney Baehr's license to
practice law after he failed to respond to
the court's order to show cause for his non-
cooperation with OLR's grievance
investigations. Attorney Baehr has not
sought reinstatement from either of the
suspensions.
5. The current disciplinary proceedings
against Attorney Baehr involve three
separate legal matters. The first involves
a couple who hired Attorney Baehr in the
spring of 1999 to represent them in a
bankruptcy. The couple paid Attorney Baehr
$1125, which was to cover the filing fee as
well as the handling of the bankruptcy case
to conclusion, including drafting and filing
documents relating to redemption and
reaffirmation of both a first and second
mortgage. Attorney Baehr completed
reaffirmation of only the second mortgage.
6. As noted above, on February 9, 2000,
Attorney Baehr's license to practice law was
suspended for 90 days effective March 20,
2000, for professional misconduct in an
unrelated matter. During the month of May
2000 the couple left five or six messages
for Attorney Baehr in which they requested
his assistance in resolving the
reaffirmation of their first mortgage.
Attorney Baehr failed to return any of those
calls. On June 2, 2000, the couple sent a
letter by certified mail to Attorney Baehr
in which they described their disappointment
in his failure to return their calls. The
letter said the legal matter was urgent in
that it involved the couple being able to
keep their home. The couple stated if they
did not hear from Attorney Baehr by June 9,
2000, they would obtain a new attorney and
request that the filing fee of $175 be
returned to them. Although Attorney Baehr
personally signed the return receipt for the
certified letter on June 5, 2000, he never
responded.
7. The couple hired new counsel and
incurred additional legal expenses that they
would not have been charged if Attorney
Baehr had resolved the matter for them. The
couple was unable to finalize the payment
plan without a completed reaffirmation and
as a result the property went into
foreclosure.
8. On August 25, 2000, an OLR staff
investigator sent the couple's grievance to
Attorney Baehr and requested him to provide
a written response within 20 days. When he
failed to respond, the OLR staff
investigator sent a follow-up letter to
Attorney Baehr on September 22, 2000, via
certified mail with a request that he submit
a written response to the couple's grievance
no later than October 2, 2000. The letter
also advised Attorney Baehr of his duty to
cooperate and the consequences he could
expect if he failed to comply. Although
Attorney Baehr personally signed the return
receipt for the certified letter on October
11, 2000, he failed to submit a response or
otherwise contact OLR staff.
9. On November 14, 2000, the OLR staff
investigator sent Attorney Baehr a notice to
appear via certified and first-class mail,
informing him that he was required to appear
at OLR's office in Madison on November 29,
2000, with his file. Attorney Baehr
personally signed the return receipt for the
notice to appear but failed to appear at the
appointed time.
10. The second claim of misconduct
involves Attorney Baehr's representation of
a man whose ex-wife sued him in Wood county
small claims court alleging that her
employer was garnishing her wages for a past
debt that her ex-husband had been ordered to
pay in their divorce case. The small claims
case requested a money judgment against
Attorney Baehr's client in excess of $3400.
The return date in the case was February 7,
2000. The client, who had been represented
by Attorney Baehr in a past, unrelated
matter, hired Attorney Baehr to represent
him at the February 7, 2000, appearance.
The client said he also expected Attorney
Baehr to represent him for the remainder of
the case. Attorney Baehr contended he was
only hired for the February 7 court
appearance.
11. Attorney Baehr appeared in court on
February 7, 2000, and asked the court to
dismiss the lawsuit. The court denied the
request. On February 15, 2000, the court
issued a notice of hearing scheduling the
small claims case for a court trial on March
21, 2000. The original notice was filed
with the court and copies were sent to
Attorney Baehr and to the plaintiff.
12. Attorney Baehr did not inform his
client of the trial date. No one appeared
on the client's behalf at the trial, and the
court issued a default judgment against the
client in the amount of $3511.18. On March
23, 2000, the court issued a notice of entry
of judgment in favor of the plaintiff and
against Attorney Baehr's client. The
original notice was filed with the court and
copies were mailed to Attorney Baehr and the
plaintiff. Attorney Baehr did not forward
either the notice of hearing or the notice
of entry of judgment to his client, nor did
he inform the client of the trial date or of
the entry of judgment in the matter. The
client learned the judgment had been entered
against him when his employer began
garnishing his wages.
13. The client filed a grievance against
Attorney Baehr, and Attorney Baehr provided
an initial response. By letter dated August
28, 2000, the OLR staff investigator asked
Attorney Baehr to provide additional
information. Attorney Baehr was asked to
reply by September 11, 2000, but failed to
do so. On October 9, 2000, the OLR staff
investigator sent Attorney Baehr a follow-up
letter by certified mail requesting his
written response no later than October 30,
2000. In the letter, the investigator
reminded Attorney Baehr of his duty to
cooperate and informed him of the
consequences if he did not reply. Although
Attorney Baehr personally signed the
certified mail return receipt on October 11,
2000, he did not respond or otherwise
contact the OLR.
14. On November 14, 2000, the OLR staff
investigator sent Attorney Baehr a notice to
appear via certified and first-class mail,
informing him that he was required to appear
at OLR's office on November 29, 2000, with
his file regarding this grievance. Attorney
Baehr personally signed the return receipt
for the notice to appear but did not appear
at the appointed time.
15. The third claim of misconduct
involved Attorney Baehr's representation of
a Green Bay resident who was arrested in
Portage county for operating his vehicle
after revocation or suspension as a second
offense. The man's initial appearance was
scheduled for December 7, 1999, in Portage
County Circuit Court in Stevens Point. The
man did not appear, and the court found
probable cause and issued a bench warrant
for his arrest.
16. On December 10, 1999, the man
contacted Attorney Baehr to represent him in
the case. Attorney Baehr told the man that
a retainer of $500 was required. The man
mailed a $500 check to Attorney Baehr that
same day. Attorney Baehr cashed the check.
17. Attorney Baehr was to contact the
district attorney's office to discuss the
ticket and was to make a court appearance
for the man. Attorney Baehr told the man he
would be notified by mail of the result.
Attorney Baehr had the man's address and
telephone numbers for both his residence in
Green Bay and his home and work location in
St. Cloud, Minnesota.
18. On July 7, 2000, the man was
detained by Green Bay police, who informed
him there was a warrant for his arrest in
Portage county. The man was transported to
Portage county and spent the weekend in jail.
19. On July 10, 2000, the man learned
that Attorney Baehr no longer practiced law,
that he never appeared in court for the man,
and that he never contacted the district
attorney's office in the matter. The
criminal case against the man was eventually
resolved, without Attorney Baehr's
participation, by means of a plea bargain
whereby the man paid a fine.
20. On August 25, 2000, an OLR staff
investigator sent the man's grievance to
Attorney Baehr and requested that he provide
a written response within 20 days. No
response was received from Attorney Baehr.
On September 22, 2000, the OLR investigator
sent a follow-up letter to Attorney Baehr
via certified mail with a request that he
submit a written response to the grievance
no later than October 2, 2000. The letter
also advised Attorney Baehr of his duty to
cooperate and the consequences he could
expect if he failed to comply. Although
Attorney Baehr personally signed the return
receipt for the certified letter on October
11, 2000, he did not submit a response or
otherwise contact the OLR.
21. On November 14, 2000, the OLR
investigator sent Attorney Baehr a notice to
appear via certified and first-class mail,
informing him that he was required to appear
at OLR's office on November 29, 2000, with
his file regarding the grievance. Attorney
Baehr personally signed the return receipt
for the notice to appear on November 24,
2000, but failed to appear at OLR's office
on November 29, 2000.
|
|
The parties stipulated, and the referee
agreed, that Attorney Baehr's actions in the
foregoing matters constituted the following
professional misconduct:
|
|
(a)
His failure to respond to
telephone messages left by the first clients
regarding the bankruptcy matter and his
failure to reply after receiving a certified
letter from them violated SCR 20:1.4(a).
|
|
(b)
His failure to forward the
circuit court's notice of hearing and notice
of entry of judgment to the second client
and his failure to return the $500 retainer
to the third client despite his failure to
perform any legal services violated SCR
20:1.16(d).
|
|
(c)
His failure to take any action on
the third client's behalf after being paid a
$500 retainer violated SCR 20:1.3.
|
|
(d)
His failure to respond to
requests from OLR staff to provide written
responses to the clients' grievances and his
failure to appear or otherwise contact staff
after he received a notice to appear
violated SCR 21.15(4), 22:001(9)(b), and
22:03(6).
|
|
23. We adopt the findings of fact and
conclusions of law set forth in the parties'
stipulation, as approved by the referee.
Attorney Baehr's actions are serious matters
warranting a suspension of his license to
practice law. A six-month suspension of his
license is appropriate discipline for his
professional misconduct.
24. IT IS ORDERED that the license of
Thomas D.
Baehr to practice law in Wisconsin is
suspended for a period of six months,
effective April 2, 2002.
|
|
25. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60
days of
the date of this order Thomas D. Baehr make
restitution of $500 to the client he was
retained to represent on the operating a
vehicle after revocation or suspension
charge. In the event restitution is not
paid within the time specified and absent a
showing to this court in writing of his
inability to pay restitution within that
time, the license of Thomas D. Baehr to
practice law in Wisconsin shall remain
suspended until further order of the court.
26. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60
days
of the date of this order Thomas D. Baehr
pay to the Office of Lawyer Regulation the
costs of this proceeding, provided that in
the event the costs are not paid within the
time specified and absent a showing to this
court in writing of his inability to pay the
costs within that time, the license of
Thomas D. Baehr to practice law in Wisconsin
shall remain suspended until further order
of the court.
27. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Thomas D.
Baehr comply with the provisions of SCR
22.26 concerning the duties of a person
whose license to practice law in Wisconsin
has been suspended.
|