|
Attorney Hazel J. Washington
(“Washington”), a Wisconsin bar member
since 1988, practiced law in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin. Washington’s law license was
suspended at the time of the imposition of
this reprimand. On November 3, 2003,
Glenda Bailey retained Atty. Hazel J.
Washington to represent Terranze C. Sharp
(“Sharp”) who was sentenced on August 13,
1991, to life imprisonment for first degree
intentional homicide. The initial retainer
was for the purpose of reviewing trial
transcripts and post-conviction matters in
Sharp’s criminal case filed in Milwaukee
County, State of Wisconsin vs. Terranze
Curtis Sharp, Milwaukee County Case
Number
1990CF904071.
On April 5, 2004, and July 19, 2004,
Washington received additional fees from
Glenda Bailey and Washington agreed to
pursue post-conviction relief
representation for Sharp.
On January 17, 2006, Washington sent a
letter to Sharp advising him that he would
receive a copy of the motion she was filing
on his behalf.
|
|
On January 26, 2006, the Wisconsin Supreme
Court ordered the summary suspension of
Washington’s law license, effective
February 3, 2006, following Washington’s
2005 felony conviction on one count of
willfully attempting to evade federal
income tax obligations. The court ordered
Washington to comply with the requirements
of SCR 22.26 relating to license
suspension. The disciplinary action
stemming from the criminal conviction was
pending as of the date of this reprimand.
Washington had no prior discipline.
On January 30, 2006, Washington
filed the post-conviction motion on Sharp’s
behalf in Milwaukee County Circuit Court.
On January 31, 2006, Washington sent a
brief letter to Sharp that said, “Please
find enclosed a copy of the Post Conviction
Modification filed on your behalf. Good
Luck.” Although she had knowledge of her
impending suspension at the time of her
letter to Sharp, Washington provided Sharp
with no information regarding her license
status or the related need for Sharp to
seek representation elsewhere, if he was to
be represented at all; nor did Washington
provide Sharp with information about
remaining judicial process relating to the
pending motion; nor did Washington provide
Sharp with information as to where she
could be reached after the suspension of
her license.
On February 3, 2006, Washington was
suspended from the practice of law in
Wisconsin.
Washington did not provide notice
of her suspension to the prosecution or the
court in State v. Sharp.
|
|
On February 28, 2006, Washington filed with
OLR an SCR 22.26 compliance affidavit as
required in Wisconsin when attorneys are
suspended from the practice of law. In her
compliance affidavit, Washington
stated, “Prior to the effective date of the
Summary Suspension, I withdrew from
representation of my current active
clients. I have no clients in pending
matters … Prior to the effective date of
the Summary suspension, I advised all
clients that they would need to have other
counsel represent them.”
On March 29, 2006, the circuit
court issued a decision and order denying
Sharp’s motion for post-conviction relief.
Sharp received a copy of the circuit court
decision from a source other than
Washington. The court’s decision
stated, “A motion for modification based on
an erroneous exercise of discretion
(formerly abuse of discretion) must be
brought pursuant to sec. 973.19, Wis.
Stats., within ninety days of sentencing,
or pursuant to sec. 809.30, Wis. Stats.,
within the appellate time limit. The
defendant was sentenced in 1991, and his
sec. 809.30 appellate time limits have
expired. Under the circumstances, his
claim of undue harshness or excessiveness
as to both the sentence and the parole
eligibility date is untimely and will not
be considered.”
On May 25, 2006, Sharp sent a
letter to Washington’s law office
requesting return of his transcript and a
copy of the retainer agreement as well as a
refund. His letter to Washington was
returned as undeliverable.
On July 19, 2006, Glenda Bailey
signed a receipt acknowledging that
she “received original copies of all
documents from Washington Law office” in
Sharp’s matter.
On August 17, 2006, OLR received
a grievance from Sharp. Sharp alleged that
Washington was incompetent in that she
filed the motion under section 809.30 when
he had requested filing under section
974.06. Sharp further alleged that
Washington failed to communicate her
intentions to him, failed to notify him of
her suspension and confinement status, and
failed to return case materials to him.
|
|
By failing to recognize that the appellate
time limits of the section of the statute
under which she filed had expired,
Washington violated SCR 20:1.1, which
states, “A lawyer shall provide competent
representation to a client. Competent
representation requires the legal
knowledge, skill, thoroughness and
preparation reasonably necessary for the
representation.”
By failing at the time of the post-
conviction motion to provide Sharp with any
information concerning the impending
suspension of her law license and the
resultant need for Sharp to seek
representation elsewhere (if he was to be
represented at all) in the matter of the
pending post-conviction motion; by failing
to provide Sharp with information about
remaining judicial process relating to the
resolution of the pending motion; by
failing to provide Sharp with post-
suspension contact information; and by
failing to immediately transmit the case
file to Sharp or otherwise make it
available to him, Washington violated the
following Supreme Court Rules:
|
|
SCR 20:1.16(d), which states, “Upon
termination of representation, a lawyer
shall take steps to the extent reasonably
practicable to protect a client’s
interests, such as giving reasonable notice
to the client, allowing time for employment
of other counsel, surrendering papers and
property to which the client is entitled
and refunding any advance payment of fee
that has not been earned. The lawyer may
retain papers relating to the client to the
extent permitted by other law.”
|
|
SCR 22.26(1)(a) and (b), which
state, “(1) On or before the effective
date of license suspension or revocation,
an attorney whose license is suspended or
revoked shall…(a) Notify by certified mail
all clients being represented in pending
matters of the suspension or revocation and
of the attorney’s consequent inability to
act as an attorney following the effective
date of the suspension or revocation…(b)
Advise the clients to seek legal advice of
their choice elsewhere.”
|
|
By failing to provide the court or
prosecution in State vs. Sharp with
notice of her law license suspension, at
the time the post-conviction motion was
filed or thereafter, Washington violated
SCR 22.26(1)(c), which states, “(1) On or
before the effective date of the license
suspension or revocation, an attorney whose
license is suspended or revoked shall…(c)
Promptly provide written notification to
the court or administrative agency and the
attorney for each party in a matter pending
before a court or administrative agency of
the suspension or revocation and of the
attorney’s consequent inability to act as
an attorney following the effective date of
the suspension or revocation. The notice
shall identify the successor attorney of
the attorney’s client or, if there is none
at the time notice is given, shall state
the client’s place of residence.”
|
|
By failing in her affidavit of February 28,
2006 to list Mr. Terranze Sharp as a client
with a pending matter and to list the court
and the case number of Sharp’s pending
matter, Washington failed to comply with
the requirements of SCR 22.26(1)(e)(iii),
which says in relevant part, “On or before
the effective date of license suspension or
revocation, an attorney whose license is
suspended or revoked shall . . . within 25
days after the effective date of suspension
or revocation, file with the director an
affidavit showing . . . a list of clients
in all pending matters and a list of all
matters pending before any court or
administrative agency, together with the
case number of each matter.”
|
|
Violations of SCR 22.26 are enforceable
under the Rules of Professional Conduct via
SCR 20:8.4(f), which states, “It is
professional misconduct for a lawyer to
violate a statute, supreme court rule,
supreme court order or supreme court
decision regulating the conduct of lawyers.
In accordance with SCR 22.09(3),
Attorney Hazel J. Washington is hereby
publicly reprimanded.
|