|
Respondent, Attorney Edward J.
Ritger, 57, practices in Random Lake,
Wisconsin. Respondent had been the attorney
for a man and his wife since about 1984.
The man died in January 2001, and his will
provided that his son and his wife, the
son’s stepmother, act as co-personal
representatives for his estate. Respondent,
the son and the stepmother met in early
April 2003 to discuss probating the man’s
estate. Respondent, acting as the attorney
for the estate, filed a Petition for
Administration and had the will admitted to
probate on April 23, 2001. Respondent
represented the estate, and the son and
stepmother in their capacities as co-
personal representatives of the estate.
In a May 4, 2001 letter, Respondent told the
son a “discrepancy” existed because,
although his father’s Marital Agreement with
his stepmother provided that she receive all
life insurance proceeds, the son had been
listed as a beneficiary and received the
proceeds from one of his father’s life
insurance policies. The letter proposed
that the son give the stepmother from estate
assets an amount equivalent to the life
insurance proceeds he had received. In the
May 4, 2001 letter, Respondent emphasized
that the stepmother was his client and he
advised the son to get separate legal advice
with respect to “matters which may involve a
conflict of interest.” Nevertheless,
Respondent stated, “I am, however, willing
to complete the probate paperwork at
[stepmother’s] expense because the Marital
Agreement requires [stepmother] to pay for
that expense.” Estate matters and potential
resolution of issues between the stepmother
and the son were discussed at a meeting and
in further correspondence in late June and
early July 2001. In a July 9, 2001 letter,
Respondent reiterated his expectation that
the son would seek separate legal counsel.
On August 6, 2001, the deadline for filing
claims, Respondent filed a claim against the
estate on behalf of the stepmother for the
life insurance proceeds allegedly due her.
The son said he did not learn of the claim
until 2003. Respondent cannot confirm that
he sent a copy of the claim to the son, but
said he thought the son was monitoring the
estate on the Internet and was aware of the
claim.
Consolidated Court Automation Program
(CCAP) records indicate no activity in the
estate after August 6, 2001 until a Notice
of Overdue Inventory was filed on June 12,
2002. Respondent subsequently filed a
petition to extend the time to file the
inventory, and the general inventory was
filed on October 14, 2002. CCAP records
show no further activity after the general
inventory was filed until the court sent a
Notice of Delinquent Estate to the co-
personal representatives on June 11, 2003.
Subsequently, on July 1, 2003, Respondent
requested a scheduling conference due to the
stepmother’s unresolved claim.
The son actively involved his
attorney sometime in the spring of 2003 to
assist him in concluding his father’s
estate. That attorney’s associate sent an
April 14, 2003 letter to Respondent asking
for information about the stepmother’s
claim. Respondent responded to the April
14, 2003 letter by letter dated July 1, 2003.
On August 8, 2003 a scheduling conference
was held and a CCAP notation reads,
“Respondent is removed as Attorney on the
case and as Attorney for claimant.” The
order to remove Respondent as attorney for
the co-personal representatives, the estate
and attorney for claimant was filed on
September 10, 2003. The son’s attorney,
retained by the son in his capacity as co-
personal representative, entered an
appearance as attorney for the estate on
October 23, 2003. Subsequently, the
stepmother retained successor counsel to
represent her in her claim against the
estate, both the son and the stepmother
resigned as co-personal representatives, and
a different attorney was appointed personal
representative.
Respondent indicated that some of the delay
in processing the estate was due to the fact
that he developed health problems in the
fall of 2002 and had surgery in January
2003, from which he was recovering into the
spring of 2003.
|
|
By representing an estate and its co-
personal representatives at the same time
that he represented one of the co-personal
representatives personally as a claimant
against the estate,
Respondent violated SCR 20:1.7(a), which
states:
A lawyer shall not represent a client if
the representation of that client will be
directly adverse to another client,
unless:
(1) the lawyer reasonably believes the
representation will not adversely affect the
relationship with the other client; and
(2) each client consents in writing
after consultation.
|
|
By failing to advance the interests of a
man’s estate between August 6, 2001 when a
claim was filed against the estate, and
September 10, 2003 when he was removed as
attorney for the estate, and in particular,
by failing to do so between the filing of
the general inventory in October 2002 and
the notice of delinquent estate in June
2003, Respondent violated SCR 20:1.3, which
states, “A lawyer shall act with reasonable
diligence and promptness in representing a
client.”
|
|
By failing to keep the son, one of the co-
personal representatives, reasonably
informed about the status and progress of
the estate proceedings between July 2001 and
June 2003, and in particular, by failing to
notify the son about the claim filed against
the estate in August 2001, Respondent
violated SCR 20:1.4(a), which states, “A
lawyer shall keep a client reasonably
informed about the status of a matter and
promptly comply with reasonable requests for
information.”
|
|
Respondent has prior discipline. In 1996
Respondent received a private reprimand for
misconduct in connection with his
representation of a client in a real estate
matter and from his failure to cooperate in
the investigation of the matter. In that
matter, Respondent was found to have
violated SCR 20:1.3, SCR 20:1.4(a), and also
SCR 21.03(4) and SCR 22.07(2), two former
rules governing cooperation in an
investigation. In 2003 Respondent was
privately reprimanded for communication with
a represented party, contrary to SCR 20:4.2.
In accordance with SCR 22.09(3), Attorney
Ritger is hereby publicly reprimanded.
|