|
PER CURIAM
ATTORNEY disciplinary
proceeding. Attorney publicly
reprimanded.
|
|
1. We review the recommendation of the
referee
that Attorney Warren L. Brandt be publicly
reprimanded for professional misconduct.
That misconduct consisted of failing to keep
a client reasonably informed about the
status of a matter and failing to promptly
comply with reasonable requests for
information; failing to cooperate with the
investigation into a grievance filed by his
client; making false or misleading
communications about himself and his
services; and failing to identify on his
office letterhead the jurisdictional
limitation of an attorney not licensed to
practice law in Wisconsin, who is listed as
being "of counsel." Neither Attorney Brandt
nor the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR)
has appealed from the referee's findings of
fact, conclusions of law, and recommended
discipline.
|
|
2. We conclude that Attorney Brandt's
professional misconduct warrants a public
reprimand for his violation of various
supreme court rules. We also determine that
Attorney Brandt shall pay the costs and fees
for these disciplinary proceedings totaling
$9694.19.
3. Attorney Brandt was admitted to
practice
law in this state in 1978 and currently
practices in Prescott, Wisconsin. He has not
previously been the subject of a
disciplinary proceeding.
4. The amended disciplinary complaint
filed
against Attorney Brandt alleged four counts
of misconduct. The first involved the
grievance filed by Attorney Brandt's former
client, T.K., who had retained him in
December of 1998 to recover money her credit
union had confiscated from her account as
consequence of an alleged forgery. T.K. made
an appointment to meet with Attorney Brandt
after seeing his advertisement in the yellow
pages of a local telephone directory. She
paid him a $1500 retainer fee and signed a
legal representation agreement.
5. After being rebuffed in his initial
contact with the credit union that T.K.
believed had wrongly retained her money,
Attorney Brandt did nothing else on her
behalf.
6. Beginning in March of 1999 T.K.
repeatedly called Attorney Brandt to ask
about the status of her case; he never
returned her calls. According to T.K. she
never spoke with Attorney Brandt at all from
March 1999 through January of 2000.
Ultimately, she spoke with Attorney Brandt
by telephone in April of 2000 at which time
he told her that he had done some research
and that she did not have a claim against
the credit union.
7. In June 2000 T.K. filed a grievance
against Attorney Brandt with the Board of
Attorneys Professional Responsibility
(BAPR). A staff investigator subsequently
wrote two letters to Attorney Brandt
requesting his written response to T.K.'s
grievance. Attorney Brandt did not respond
to the two letters. In November of 2000,
while the Office of Lawyer Regulation's
(OLR) investigation into the grievance was
pending, Attorney Brandt returned to T.K.
the $1500 retainer fee she had paid and the
documents she had given him.
8. During the OLR's investigation, it
was
discovered that Attorney Brandt had placed
advertisements in the local telephone
directories for the years 1996-97, 1997-98,
and 1998-99. Those advertisements were
entitled "Brandt & Associates" with the
name "Warren Lee Brandt, Esquire" appearing
in italics beneath the name of the firm. The
advertisements also contained the
phrases "Former District Attorneys Pierce &
St. Croix Counties," "Aggressive Trial
Lawyers," and "Experienced Criminal Defense
Attorneys." (Emphasis added.) These
advertisements used plurals even though
Attorney Brandt had been a sole practitioner
since July 1996.
9. The OLR investigation further
revealed
that the office stationery letterhead used
by Attorney Brandt in his practice during
this period until May of 2000, identified
one Joseph B. Marshall as being "of counsel"
to Attorney Brandt's firm. During the time
Attorney Brandt used this letterhead, Joseph
Marshall was licensed to practice law in
Minnesota but not in Wisconsin. Attorney
Brandt's stationery letterhead did not note
that fact.
10. The OLR misconduct complaint alleged
the
following four counts of misconduct by
Attorney Brandt in violation of several
rules of professional responsibility.
|
|
· By making only four calls to his
client, T.K., during the one and one-half
years he represented her, and by failing to
respond to her inquiries and communicate
with her, Attorney Brandt violated SCR 20:1.4
(a) which requires a lawyer to keep a client
reasonably informed about the status of a
matter and promptly comply with reasonable
requests for information.
|
|
· By failing to respond to two requests
from the Board of Attorneys Professional
Responsibility staff to respond to the T.K.
grievance, Attorney Brandt violated former
SCR 21.03(4) and SCR 22.07(2).
|
|
· By placing advertisements in the 1996-
97, 1997-98, and 1998-99 telephone
directories suggesting that his firm
included attorneys who were former district
attorneys in two counties, aggressive trial
lawyers, and experienced criminal defense
attorneys, when in fact Attorney Brandt was
the only attorney in his firm, Attorney
Brandt violated SCR 20:7.1(a) which provides
that a lawyer shall not make a false or
misleading communication about the lawyer or
the lawyer's services.
|
|
· By listing a lawyer as being "of
counsel" on Attorney Brandt's letterhead
stationery without identifying the
jurisdictional limitation on the lawyer, who
is not licensed to practice in Wisconsin,
where Attorney Brandt's office is located,
Attorney Brandt violated SCR 20:7.5(a); by
failing to identify on his letterhead the
jurisdictional limitation of an attorney not
licensed to practice law in Wisconsin,
Attorney Brandt violated SCR 20:7.5(b); and
by falsely stating or implying that he
practices in a partnership or other type of
organization, Attorney Brandt violated SCR
20:7.5(d).
|
|
11. After the OLR's complaint was filed and
Attorney Brandt filed his answer, Attorney
Janet Jenkins was appointed as referee in
this matter. Referee Jenkins subsequently
granted summary judgment in favor of the OLR
with respect to several counts of misconduct
that had been alleged. After hearing
testimony on the remaining issues, the
referee determined that Attorney Brandt had
violated the various rules of professional
conduct as alleged in the amended complaint.
|
|
12. We have reviewed the referee's findings
of
fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation
for discipline. We conclude that the
findings are supported by clear,
satisfactory, and convincing evidence as
required by SCR 22.16(5). Accordingly, we
adopt those findings of fact and conclusions
set forth in the referee's report and we
accept the referee's recommendation that
Attorney Brandt's professional misconduct
warrants a public reprimand.
|
|
13. In addition, we conclude pursuant to
our
authority in SCR 22.24, that all the costs
and fees incurred in this disciplinary
proceeding shall be assessed against
Attorney Brandt. We have reviewed the OLR's
detailed itemization of its requested costs
and fees and we conclude that under the
circumstances of this case, those costs and
fees totaling $9694.19 are reasonable. We
believe those reasonable costs and fees
should be borne by the attorney whose
misconduct prompted the BAPR/OLR
investigation which ultimately resulted in
the referee's adverse determinations
following an evidentiary hearing. See In
re Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Pangman, 216 Wis. 2d 440, 574 N.W.2d 232
(1998).
|
|
14. We conclude that a public reprimand and
requiring Attorney Brandt to bear the costs
and fees of this disciplinary proceeding is
an appropriate discipline for his
professional misconduct.
15. IT IS ORDERED that Attorney Warren
L.
Brandt is publicly reprimanded for his
professional misconduct.
16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60
days
of the date of this order, Attorney Warren
L. Brandt pay to the Office of Lawyer
Regulation the costs and fees incurred in
this proceeding totaling $9694.19.
|