|
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding.
Attorney publicly reprimanded.
|
|
1. PER CURIAM. We review the
recommendation of the referee that Attorney
Clay F. Teasdale be publicly reprimanded for
having committed two counts of professional
misconduct in connection with his
representation of J.S. in a personal injury
matter. In addition, the referee recommended
that Attorney Teasdale be required to pay
restitution to the client, as well as the
costs of this disciplinary proceeding.
2. We determine that the seriousness of
Attorney Teasdale's professional misconduct
warrants a public reprimand. We also
determine that Attorney Teasdale should be
required to make restitution to his client,
and we require Attorney Teasdale to pay the
costs of this proceeding.
|
|
3. Attorney Teasdale was admitted to
practice in Wisconsin in 1983. He has been
temporarily suspended from the practice of
law in Wisconsin since January 23, 2004, for
failure to respond to or otherwise cooperate
with a disciplinary investigation unrelated
to the instant matter. Attorney Teasdale has
not sought reinstatement. He has one
previous public reprimand.
4. Paragraph deleted.
5. Paragraph deleted.
|
|
6. On February 2, 2004, the OLR filed a
complaint against Attorney Teasdale. The
matter was submitted to a referee. Teasdale
answered and appeared pro se but did not
participate after the issuance of a
scheduling order on March 15, 2004. The
record reflected that he has not "participate
[d] in a meaningful way in this case before
the Referee."
7. The complaint filed by the OLR alleged
two counts of misconduct committed in
connection with Teasdale's representation of
J.S. in a personal injury matter. The
complaint alleged that Attorney Teasdale
filed a complaint on J.S.'s behalf in June
1997. On June 9, 1998, defense counsel
served Teasdale with a deposition notice for
J.S.; the deposition was to be conducted on
June 16, 1998. On June 9, 1998, defense
counsel attempted to contact Attorney
Teasdale by telephone, but received a
message that Attorney Teasdale's telephone
was "temporarily disconnected." Defense
counsel heard nothing from Teasdale.
Teasdale did not inform his client of the
scheduled deposition and neither Teasdale
nor his client appeared at the deposition.
Defense counsel later learned that Teasdale
had relocated his practice from Marinette,
Wisconsin to Menominee, Michigan.
8. Opposing counsel then filed and served
Attorney Teasdale with a motion for costs
based on the failure to produce J.S. for the
deposition. Teasdale failed to inform his
client of the motion, but appeared at the
hearing. The court issued an order directing
Teasdale to pay $426.35 in costs in
connection with the matter. Attorney
Teasdale did not inform his client of this
order.
9. Subsequently, the personal injury
matter settled, and appropriate checks were
sent to Attorney Teasdale, along with a
draft stipulation and order for dismissal.
However, Teasdale rejected the draft and
proposed a release that dismissed the
action "on the merits with prejudice and
without further costs..." Opposing counsel
rejected this proposal because Attorney
Teasdale had not yet paid the $426 costs
previously ordered by the court. Opposing
counsel forwarded the judgment for costs to
the court. Teasdale filed an objection to
the judgment for costs, asserting that the
matter had been dismissed without costs,
which was not accurate because opposing
counsel had not signed the draft release
proposed by Teasdale.
10. On February 26, 1999, the court
executed the judgment for costs and advised
Teasdale, in writing, that the earlier
order "clearly states that the plaintiff
shall pay to the defendant the sum of
$426.35." Attorney Teasdale did not notify
his client of this judgment for costs.
Indeed, J.S. did not learn of the judgment
until he applied for a bank loan, and
ultimately paid the judgment himself in
order to clear his credit status. The record
does not reflect that Attorney Teasdale ever
reimbursed J.S. for these costs.
|
|
11. The OLR alleged and the referee found
that by failing to respond to the deposition
notice, Attorney Teasdale failed to make a
reasonably diligent effort to comply with a
legally proper discovery request in
violation of SCR 20:3.4(d). The OLR also
alleged and the referee found further that
by failing to notify his client of the
deposition, Attorney Teasdale failed to keep
a client reasonably informed about the
status of a matter in violation of SCR 20:1.4
(a).
|
|
12. The referee recommended that the court
publicly reprimand Attorney Teasdale. In
making that recommendation, the referee
observed that a public reprimand was
consistent with established legal precedent.
In addition, the referee recommended that
Attorney Teasdale be required to pay
restitution to his client, as well as the
costs of this proceeding.
|
|
13. We adopt the referee's findings of fact
and conclusions of law and determine that a
public reprimand is the appropriate
discipline to impose on Attorney Teasdale
for the professional misconduct established
in this proceeding. We also adopt the
recommendation that Attorney Teasdale be
required to pay the costs of the OLR
prosecution, as well as restitution to his
client, J.S.
14. IT IS ORDERED that Clay F. Teasdale
is publicly reprimanded as discipline for
professional misconduct.
15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60
days of the date of this order, Attorney
Clay F. Teasdale make restitution to his
former client in the amount of $426.35, plus
post-judgment interest, provided that if the
restitution is not made within the time
specified and absent a showing to this court
of his inability to make the restitution
within that time, the license of Clay F.
Teasdale to practice law in Wisconsin shall
be suspended until further order of the
court.
16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60
days of the date of this order, Clay F.
Teasdale pay to the Office of Lawyer
Regulation the costs of this proceeding,
provided that if the costs are not paid
within the time specified and absent a
showing to this court of his inability to
pay the costs within that time, the license
of Clay F. Teasdale to practice law in
Wisconsin shall be suspended until further
order of the court.
|