|
In 1996, Attorney Richard E. Reilly was
retained to represent J.B. in her divorce.
J.B.’s husband had an interest in a
retirement system and the method of division
of the pension was at issue in the divorce.
One method of division would have required
that the present value of the pension be
determined. The parties did not come an
agreement regarding the division of the
pension until the day the matter was set for
trial. However, Atty. Reilly admits that,
prior to the date of the trial, he had not
determined the present value of the
pension. Therefore, had the matter gone to
trial, Atty. Reilly would have been
unprepared to argue a division based upon
the present value of the pension and was
unaware if a division based on such a
valuation may have been more or less
advantageous to his client.
|
|
By failing to thoroughly prepare J.B.’s case
with regards to the division of her
husband’s pension, Atty. Reilly failed to
act with reasonable diligence and promptness
in representing a client in violation of SCR
20:1.3.
Upon investigation, it was discovered that
Atty. Reilly failed to file his 1992-1994
Wisconsin Income tax returns until July 31,
1996. He failed to file his 1995 Wisconsin
Income tax return until May 19, 1997. Tax
warrants were issued and Atty. Reilly
eventually paid all taxes, fees and
penalties owing.
|
|
By failing to file his Wisconsin Income tax
returns, Atty. Reilly violated the standard
of conduct set forth by the Wisconsin
Supreme Court in State v. Roggensack, 19
Wis.2d 38, 45 (1963) and thereby violated
SCR 20:8.4(f).
In 1985, Atty. Reilly was privately
reprimanded for neglecting two estates
entrusted to him.
In accordance with SCR 22.09(3), Attorney
Richard E. Reilly is hereby publicly
reprimanded.
|