|
The Respondent, Attorney Koua Vang, 40,
practices in Madison, Wisconsin. This
reprimand is based on Respondent’s conduct
in three separate matters.
In the first matter, a client retained
Respondent in April 2001 to represent him in
a dispute with a general contractor.
Respondent agreed to represent the client up
to and including court action, if necessary,
for a flat fee of $5000.00. The client paid
Respondent a total of $2800.00; $2500.00 in
April 2001 and three monthly payments of
$100.00 each.
Respondent actively worked on the
client’s file between April 10 and July 10,
2001. During that time period, Respondent
corresponded, or otherwise communicated,
with the client, the client’s bank, the
contractor and the contractor’s attorney.
According to Respondent, his time records
indicate that between April 2001 and July
10, 2001, he spent 28.3 hours of time on the
client’s matter. Respondent did not work on
the client’s matter subsequent to July 10,
2001.
In a November 15, 2001 letter to
Respondent, the client requested an update
on his case. Respondent did not respond to
the client’s November 15, 2001 letter.
On March 26, 2002, the client again wrote
to Respondent and stated:
It has been a year now since I’ve hired
you. If you are not planning to do anything
with my case you will need to refund the
money I gave you as a retainer and let me
know so that I can hire another lawyer.
Since November of 2001, I’ve not heard
anything from you. Please respond to this
letter as soon as possible.
Respondent did not respond to the
client’s March 26, 2002 letter for four
months. After Respondent had been contacted
by the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR)
about the matter, Respondent wrote a July
26, 2002 letter to the client, stating that
he would like to finish the case for the
client, but that if the client wished to
hire another attorney, Respondent would
refund a “reasonable amount” of money to
him.
After retaining an attorney to assist
him, Respondent eventually reached an
agreement with the client and issued a
refund check in the amount of $1800.00.
|
|
By failing to work on the client’s matter
after July 10, 2001, or to otherwise advance
the client’s interests between July 10, 2001
and July 26, 2002, Respondent violated SCR
20:1.3, which requires that a lawyer act
with reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client.
|
|
By failing, after July 2001, to keep the
client informed about the status of his
matter, by failing to respond to the
client’s November 15, 2001 letter and by
failing to promptly respond to the client’s
March 26, 2002 letter requesting a status
report or a refund, Respondent 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.
In the second matter, the State Public
Defender (SPD) appointed Respondent on
December 26, 2001 to serve as appellate
counsel for a defendant whose probation had
been revoked.
Between December 26, 2001 and February
11, 2002, the defendant sent at least two
letters to Respondent requesting information
and a copy of his police report, but
received no response. The defendant
contacted the SPD, who then prompted the
Respondent to write the defendant.
Respondent answered that he would meet with
the defendant and discuss the appeal after
he had received and reviewed the
transcripts. That letter, dated March 12,
2002, was the only communication Respondent
ever had with the defendant.
On May 31, 2002, the defendant again
wrote Respondent, copying the SPD, asking
about the status of his case and requesting
a copy of the police report. Despite
further prompting from the SPD, Respondent
did not respond.
After two more letters went unanswered,
on March 6, 2003, the defendant wrote
letters to both the Director of the
Appellate Division of the SPD and the
Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District IV,
(Court) regarding Respondent’s failure to
communicate with him. On March 21, 2003,
the Court ordered Respondent and the SPD to
respond, within ten days from the date of
the order, to the defendant’s March 6, 2003
letter to the Court. Respondent failed to
respond to the Court’s order. An Attorney
Manager filed a response on behalf of the
SPD, in which he outlined the SPD’s
unsuccessful attempts to get Respondent to
respond to SPD inquiries about the
defendant’s case. The Attorney Manager
stated that, with the Court’s approval, the
SPD was willing to appoint successor counsel
to represent the defendant.
On May 2, 2003, the Court discharged
Respondent from his representation of the
defendant and ordered Respondent to transmit
the defendant’s file to the SPD no later
than May 13, 2003. Respondent failed to
comply with the Court’s May 2, 2003 order.
On May 16, 2003, the Court again ordered
Respondent to turn the defendant’s file over
to the SPD no later than May 23, 2003.
Respondent failed to comply with the Court’s
May 16, 2003 order. On June 10, 2003, the
Court ordered Respondent to hand-deliver the
transcripts and file in the defendant’s
matter to the SPD by June 16, 2003.
Respondent failed to deliver the file by
June 16, 2003 and he was fined $25.00 per
day for every day after June 16, 2003 that
the file was not returned.
After retaining an attorney to assist
him, Respondent had the defendant’s file
hand-delivered to the SPD on July 1, 2003,
along with a June 30, 2003 letter of apology
from Respondent to the Attorney Manager.
Respondent paid the $350.00 fine imposed by
the Court on October 28, 2003. The Court
granted the defendant an extension of time
to file for post-conviction relief.
The grievant in this specific matter
supplied the Referee with a response to the
proposed discipline. OLR and Respondent’s
attorney also supplied the Referee with
their responses to the grievant’s
submission. The Referee has considered all
these responses in making his decision.
|
|
By failing, after March 12, 2002, to advance
the defendant’s interests in his case and by
failing to respond to SPD inquiries
regarding the status of the defendant’s
case, Respondent violated SCR 20:1.3, which
requires that a lawyer act with reasonable
diligence and promptness in representing a
client.
|
|
By failing to respond to numerous written
inquiries from the defendant, by failing to
speak with the defendant in person or by
telephone, or to otherwise keep him apprised
of the status of his case, and by failing,
except for the March 12, 2002 letter, to
establish any communication whatsoever with
the defendant, Respondent 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 comply with three Court orders
to deliver the defendant’s file and
transcripts to the SPD, Respondent violated
SCR 20:1.16(d) which requires, in part, that
a lawyer take steps to protect a client’s
interests upon termination of
representation, including surrendering
papers to which the client is entitled.
The third matter, brought to OLR’s
attention by SPD’s Appellate Division
Attorney Manager, involves Respondent’s
conduct as appointed appellate counsel for
eight different State Public Defender
clients.
Respondent was appointed to represent the
first client on May 3, 2002. Respondent
performed no work on this client’s file and
had no communication with the client for
over a year. The client’s file was returned
to the SPD on July 1, 2003.
Respondent was appointed to represent a
second client on May 3, 2002. Respondent
performed no work on the second client’s
file and had no communication with the
client for over a year, despite inquiries
from the client. The client’s file was
returned to the SPD on July 1, 2003. The
Court granted the client an extension of
time within which to file a notice of
appearance or post-conviction motion.
Respondent was appointed to represent a
third client on July 23, 2002. Respondent
performed no work on the third client’s
file, established no communication with the
client and returned the client’s file to the
SPD on July 1, 2003. The Court granted the
client an extension of time within which to
file a notice of appearance or post-
conviction motion.
Respondent was appointed to represent a
fourth client on May 3, 2003. Respondent
performed no work on the fourth client’s
file and had no communication with the
client for over a year. Respondent returned
the client’s file to the SPD on July 1, 2003.
Respondent was appointed to represent a
fifth client on July 23, 2002. Respondent
performed no work on the fifth client’s
file, established no communication with the
client and returned the client’s file to the
SPD on July 1, 2003.
Respondent was appointed to represent a
sixth client on November 15, 2002.
Respondent performed no work on the sixth
client’s file and established no
communication with the client for over seven
months. Respondent returned the client’s
file to the SPD on July 1, 2003.
Respondent was appointed to represent a
seventh client on November 3, 2000. By
letter dated January 24, 2001, Respondent
advised the client that he intended to file
a no merit report, but then failed to file
the report, failed to perform any further
work on the file and failed to have any
further communication with the client.
Respondent returned the client’s file to the
SPD on July 1, 2003.
Respondent was appointed to represent an
eighth client in two cases. He was
appointed to represent the client in the
first matter on July 23, 2002 and in the
second matter on November 15, 2002.
Respondent performed no work on the client’s
files and established no communication with
the client. On May 12, 2003, a court
ordered Respondent removed as the client’s
attorney. The client’s files were returned
to the SPD in May 2003.
After retaining an attorney to assist
him, Respondent had the clients’ files hand-
delivered to the SPD on July 1, 2003, along
with a June 30, 2003 letter of apology from
Respondent to the Attorney Manager.
|
|
With respect to each of the eight SPD
clients, by failing to work on the client’s
matter or to otherwise advance the client’s
interests, Respondent violated SCR 20:1.3,
which requires that a lawyer act with
reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client.
|
|
With respect to each of the eight SPD
clients, by failing to keep the client
informed about the status of the matter or
establish communication with the client,
Respondent 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.
|
|
Respondent indicated he was suffering from
depression during the time period
encompassing the three matters that are the
subject of this reprimand.
|
|
In accordance with SCR 22.09(3), Attorney
Koua Vang is hereby publicly reprimanded,
with the condition that he continue to
receive professional treatment for his
depression for a period of two years from
the date of this reprimand, unless earlier
discharged from treatment by his treatment
professionals, and that he cause to be
submitted to the Director of OLR quarterly
reports of that treatment.
|