|
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding.
Attorney publicly reprimanded.
|
|
1 PER CURIAM. We review a report and
recommendation filed by referee Rose Marie
Baron on April 11, 2005, incorporating
Attorney Pierquet's no contest plea and
stipulations executed by the parties,
recommending that Attorney Mark G. Pierquet
receive a public reprimand for professional
misconduct and that the court impose certain
conditions upon Attorney Pierquet's practice
of law.
2 Having independently reviewed the
record, we accept the referee's factual
findings and recommendation upon
stipulations. We agree that Attorney
Pierquet's conduct violated the rules of
professional conduct and we further agree
that a public reprimand and the imposition
of conditions is the appropriate discipline
for Attorney Pierquet's misconduct. We also
conclude that Attorney Pierquet should be
required to pay the costs of the Office of
Lawyer Regulation (OLR) proceeding, which
total $810.72 as of April 28, 2005.
3 Attorney Pierquet was admitted to
practice law in Wisconsin in September
2001. He has not previously been
disciplined.
4 As the OLR complaint alleged and the
referee subsequently found, the client in
this matter, R.G., allegedly sustained
injuries while undergoing treatment at a
doctor's office in January 2000. In 2001 an
attorney in Menasha referred R.G. to
Attorney Pierquet and a colleague who would
serve as his co-counsel.
5 Attorney Pierquet and his colleague
met with R.G. and explained that they would
jointly represent R.G. Attorney Pierquet
would investigate and plead the case; his
colleague was responsible for the trial.
6 R.G. agreed to retain Attorney
Pierquet and his colleague on a contingent
fee basis. Attorney Pierquet asserts that
he reduced the contingent fee to writing,
but was unable to produce a copy. R.G. does
not recall signing a contingent fee
agreement, but does recall that he asked
Attorney Pierquet for a copy and did not
receive one.
7 On July 9, 2002, Attorney Pierquet
filed a complaint on behalf of R.G. in the
Outagamie County Circuit Court. On January
9, 2003, opposing counsel wrote Attorney
Pierquet, seeking dates to depose R.G.'s
expert witnesses. Attorney Pierquet failed
to respond to that letter.
8 On March 10, 2003, opposing counsel
spoke with Attorney Pierquet and Pierquet
agreed to provide the expert witnesses for
depositions. On March 27, 2003, opposing
counsel wrote Attorney Pierquet, again
seeking deposition dates for the expert
witnesses, and also seeking a stipulation to
modify the scheduling order. Attorney
Pierquet failed to respond to that letter.
9 Opposing counsel called Attorney
Pierquet on April 7th, April 11th, and April
15, 2003, to inquire about the stipulation
for modifying the scheduling order.
Attorney Pierquet failed to return these
calls.
10 On April 16, 2003, opposing counsel
wrote to Attorney Pierquet requesting a
response and informing Attorney Pierquet
that failure to respond would result in a
motion to the court. Attorney Pierquet did
not respond.
11 On May 13, 2003, opposing counsel
filed a motion to dismiss R.G.'s complaint,
or in the alternative to modify the
scheduling order and compel discovery. The
circuit court heard the motion on July 2,
2003. The court then limited R.G.'s
witnesses, ordered R.G. to provide opposing
counsel the theory of liability by July 14,
2003, and imposed costs of $400 on R.G. to
compensate opposing counsel for the costs of
bringing the motion.
12 On July 2, 2003, opposing counsel
spoke with Attorney Pierquet about
dismissing the lawsuit. On July 9, 2003,
opposing counsel sent Attorney Pierquet a
stipulation and order for dismissal.
13 Attorney Pierquet failed to provide
opposing counsel the theory of liability by
July 14, 2003, as ordered by the court.
14 On August 8, 2003, without
consulting his client, Attorney Pierquet
signed a stipulation to dismiss R.G.'s case
with prejudice. On August 27, 2003, based
upon this stipulation, the circuit court
dismissed the lawsuit. Attorney Pierquet
did not inform either R.G. or his own
colleague that he had stipulated to
dismissal of the case.
15 In September 2003 Attorney
Pierquet's colleague received notice of a
trial date for R.G.'s case. He informed
Attorney Pierquet that he required more time
to prepare for trial. Attorney Pierquet
then informed his colleague that due to the
lack of notice, the court had removed the
case from the calendar and would reschedule
it later. This information was false, as
Attorney Pierquet knew.
16 On or about September 9, 2003, R.G.
called Attorney Pierquet to ask what he
should wear to court. Attorney Pierquet did
not inform R.G. that he had stipulated to
dismissal, and instead told R.G. that the
case was progressing smoothly toward
conclusion.
17 On or about October 8, 2003, R.G.
contacted Attorney Pierquet, stating that he
had learned that his case had been
dismissed. He sought an explanation from
Attorney Pierquet. Attorney Pierquet
falsely stated to R.G. that he had not
signed a stipulation dismissing the case.
18 At this point Attorney Pierquet's
colleague conducted a case search and
confirmed that a stipulation for dismissal
had been entered in R.G.'s case. He
confronted Attorney Pierquet, who initially
gave a noncommittal response, but
subsequently admitted signing the
stipulation.
|
|
19 The disciplinary complaint filed
against Attorney Pierquet alleged five
counts of misconduct. Eventually, Attorney
Pierquet agreed to plead no contest to these
five counts. In March 2005 the parties
executed a stipulation and no contest plea
agreeing, with minor clarifications, that
the factual allegations set forth in the
complaint were accurate. The referee thus
concluded that there was an adequate factual
basis in the record to show that Attorney
Pierquet had committed misconduct in respect
to each of the five allegations set forth by
the OLR. Subsequently, the parties entered
a second stipulation regarding discipline.
|
|
20 The stipulation stated, and the
referee concluded that by failing to reduce
his contingent fee agreement with R.G. to
writing, Attorney Pierquet violated SCR
20:1.5(c).
|
|
21 In addition, the parties stipulated
and the referee concluded that by failing to
properly prosecute R.G.'s lawsuit, by
failing to respond to discovery requests,
and by failing to comply with a court-
ordered deadline, Attorney Pierquet failed
to provide competent representation in
violation of SCR 20:1.1, and also failed to
act with reasonable diligence and promptness
in representing a client in violation of SCR
20:1.3.
|
|
22 In addition, by stipulating to the
dismissal of R.G.'s lawsuit with prejudice
without consulting or informing his client,
the parties stipulated and the referee
concluded that Attorney Pierquet failed to
abide by a client's decisions concerning the
objectives of a representation and consult
with the client as to the means by which
they are to be pursued in violation of SCR
20:1.2(a).
|
|
23 The stipulation provided and the
referee also concluded that by stating to
R.G. that the case was progressing, and by
denying that he had signed a stipulation for
dismissal when in fact he had signed a
stipulation for dismissal and the case had
been dismissed, Attorney Pierquet engaged in
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit,
or misrepresentation in violation of SCR
20:8.4(c).
|
|
24 Finally, the parties stipulated and
the referee concluded that by failing to
inform his co-counsel that he had dismissed
the case and by misleading co-counsel into
believing the case was pending and that the
trial would be rescheduled, Attorney
Pierquet engaged in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation in violation of SCR 20:8.4
(c).
|
|
25 The parties eventually reached a
second stipulation providing that Attorney
Pierquet would receive a public reprimand
for his misconduct and that certain
conditions would be imposed on Attorney
Pierquet's practice of law. Specifically,
the parties stipulated that:
For a period of two years following the
date of the Supreme Court's final order,
Pierquet shall continue medical treatment,
and shall comply with all treatment
recommendations; and
Six months after the date of the Supreme
Court's final order, and every six months
thereafter until two years after the Court's
order, Pierquet shall provide full medical
treatment records to OLR.
26 The stipulation sets forth the
medical reasons for these conditions and the
referee accepted the stipulation as part of
her recommendation regarding discipline.
Based on our review of the record, we agree
that a public reprimand with the imposition
of the conditions described herein is
appropriate in this matter. We further
conclude that Attorney Pierquet should be
required to pay the costs of this proceeding.
27 IT IS ORDERED that Attorney Mark G.
Pierquet is publicly reprimanded for
professional misconduct.
28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the
following conditions are imposed upon
Attorney Pierquet's license to practice law
in Wisconsin:
For a period of two years following the
date of the Supreme Court's final order,
[Attorney] Pierquet shall continue medical
treatment, and shall comply with all
treatment recommendations; and
Six months after the date of the Supreme
Court's final order, and every six months
thereafter until two years after the Court's
order, [Attorney] Pierquet shall provide
full medical treatment records to [the] OLR.
29 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60
days of the date of this order Attorney Mark
G. Pierquet shall pay to the Office of
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this
proceeding. If the costs are not paid
within the time specified and absent a
showing to this court of an inability to pay
the costs within that time, the license of
Attorney Mark G. Pierquet to practice law in
Wisconsin shall be suspended until further
order of the court.
|