|
In November of 1990, Attorney Charles R.
Koehn received at least a $2,500 retainer to
represent Lou A. Griffin regarding an appeal
of Griffin’s federal criminal conviction.
Koehn filed a Notice of Appeal and obtained
trial transcripts. An appellate brief was
due on February 22, 1991. Koehn did not
file the brief, nor did he file a required
jurisdictional statement.
On February 27, 1991, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a
Rule to Show Cause directing Mr. Koehn to
file the overdue jurisdictional statement
within 14 days. Koehn failed to do so. On
March 6, 1991, the Court issued a Rule to
Show Cause “why disciplinary action should
not be taken . . . for failing to prosecute
this appeal.” Koehn still did not file a
response. On April 25, 1991, Koehn was
fined $100 for failing to file the
jurisdictional statement and failing to
respond to the Rule to Show Cause. Koehn
was ordered to pay the fine and file the
statement by May 3, 1991.
On May 14, 1991, in response to a motion
by Mr. Koehn for an extension of time, the
Seventh Circuit ordered Koehn to pay the
fine forthwith and file a detailed response
to the Rule to Show Cause by May 20, 1991.
On May 17, 1991, with Griffin’s consent,
Koehn filed a voluntary motion to dismiss
the appeal. On May 30, 1991, Griffin’s
appeal was dismissed.
|
|
The Board concluded that by failing to file
the jurisdictional statement and appellate
brief, and by failing to respond to the
court’s Rules to Show Cause, Mr. Koehn
failed to act with reasonable diligence and
promptness in representing Mr. Griffin,
contrary to SCR 20:1.3.
|
|
At the time that Mr. Koehn voluntarily
dismissed Mr. Griffin’s appeal, Griffin was
incarcerated, and Koehn had never met with
or spoken to Griffin. Koehn’s contacts with
Griffin were primarily through Griffin’s
wife. Koehn led the Griffins to believe
that he would pursue other avenues of relief
on Griffin’s behalf after the appeal was
dismissed. Between June and November of
1991, Mrs. Griffin attempted to call Koehn
at least ten times and wrote to Koehn at
least three times seeking information about
the status of the case. Koehn failed to
respond to these inquiries except for one
meeting with Mrs. Griffin in August of
1991. The Board concluded that Koehn
thereby failed to promptly comply with
reasonable requests for information,
contrary to SCR 20:1.4(a).
On January 22, 1992, eight months after
the voluntary dismissal of Mr. Griffin’s
appeal and more than a year after Griffin’s
sentencing, Mr. Koehn filed a Rule 35(b)
motion requesting a reduction of Griffin’s
sentence. That motion was dismissed because
a Rule 35(b) motion can be filed only by the
government, and then only within a year of
sentencing. Koehn has acknowledged that he
did not realize that a Rule 35(b) motion was
available only to the government and had to
be filed within one year of sentencing.
|
|
The Board concluded that Mr. Koehn’s filing
of the Rule 35(b) motion, and his overall
handling of Mr. Griffin’s appeal, was
incompetent and in violation of SCR 20:1.1.
|
|
The dismissal of Mr. Griffin’s appeal was
subsequently vacated and remanded upon the
court’s finding that Griffin had received
ineffective assistance of counsel. On
remand, the appeal was denied. The Board
required Mr. Koehn to refund the full amount
of the retainer he had received from
Griffin, finding that any representation he
provided to Griffin on his appeal had been
of no value. By signing and accepting this
reprimand, Koehn asserts that he has now
made a full refund.
In accordance with SCR 21.09(2), the
Board of Attorneys Professional
Responsibility does hereby publicly
reprimand Attorney Charles R. Koehn of Green
Bay, Wisconsin.
|