|
Atty. Peter Manghera (“Manghera”), a
Wisconsin bar member since 1995, practices
law in Madison, Wisconsin and does patent
work.
Manghera was employed as an attorney
in a Madison law firm (“the Firm”) from
January 14, 2002, through February 5, 2008.
On March 24, 2008, the General
Counsel for the Firm, filed a grievance
against Manghera alleging that while
employed by the Firm, Manghera
misrepresented the status of matters to
clients and abandoned certain foreign patent
filings.
According to the General Counsel,
during the week of January 28, 2008 through
February 1, 2008, the Firm became aware of
discrepancies in Manghera’s servicing of
several clients when one client expressed
concern about Manghera’s responsiveness and
gave the Firm several status charts prepared
by Manghera. In response to the expressed
concerns, on February 5, 2008, Manghera and
the General Counsel discussed the matter.
In the General Counsel’s March 24, 2008,
grievance to OLR, he stated:
When I questioned him [Manghera] about
the abandonments, he told me that the
foreign applications had received “strong
rejections” from those patent offices and
the foreign associates advised him that they
were not worth pursuing. I asked Manghera
if he had communicated the abandonments to
the client and he told me he had not. I
asked him why and he responded that
he "could not give me a rational reason.” I
asked Manghera if he had made any
affirmative representations to the client
that the matters were not abandoned. He
referred me to the charts he had prepared.
Manghera then revealed that some of the
information on the charts he had given to
the client was inaccurate. I asked him to
send me the charts and indicate any
problems. He e-mailed the charts to me and
identified several matters that he said
were “problematic.” Upon receiving the
charts, [another firm attorney] and I began
to check the information contained in them
and, in doing so, we verified numerous
inaccuracies. [The firm attorney] and I
then traveled to Madison and called Manghera
into an interview. During that interview,
Manghera acknowledged that some of the
information on the status charts he had sent
to the client was false, and that he had
not, in some cases, done work that the
charts indicated he had done. Manghera
could not provide an explanation for his
actions. I asked him whether there were
matters for any other clients that were
similarly problematic. He told me he could
not think of any other matters. At that
time, we terminated Manghera’s employment.
On Wednesday morning, February 6,
Manghera
sent me an e-mail identifying three other
matters, for three other clients, that were
problematic. He admitted that in two of
those matters, he had told the client that
he had done some work which in fact he had
not done.
In a responsive submission filed
with OLR, dated June 6, 2008, counsel for
Manghera affirmed that Manghera made
misrepresentations to three clients about
the status of their respective cases and
that Manghera gave the information to
clients in chart form with the knowledge
that the charts contained
misrepresentations.
In a letter to OLR dated August 15,
2008, the General Counsel provided
additional detail concerning the grievance
and he attached numerous charts prepared by
Manghera for two related clients. The
charts contained false information. The
General Counsel asserted that charts dated
March 14 2007 and July 31, 2007, containing
false information, were provided to the
client by Manghera. The General Counsel
further asserted that foreign patent
applications pending went abandoned because
Manghera failed to respond to an office
action, domestic applications were falsely
reported as pending when Manghera had not
filed the applications, Manghera supplied
false application numbers, and Manghera
reported a domestic application
as “special,” despite the fact that Manghera
had not made this application “special.”
In his June 6, 2008 submission to
OLR, counsel for Manghera stated
that, “Peter admits that he did fail to
advise some clients of abandonments and to
consult with them concerning his decision to
abandon their foreign patents … Although he
believes this conclusion was sound, he
admits that he failed to properly involve
the clients in the decision or to advise
them of his conclusion.” Counsel for
Manghera also stated that Manghera “did
submit hours to the firm for work he told
the client he had done, but in fact had
not.” Manghera’s counsel added that
Manghera wrote off that time before it was
billed to the client, and Manghera therefore
believes that no client was charged for work
not performed.
In a letter to OLR dated September
11, 2008, the General Counsel confirmed that
Manghera wrote-off a significant portion of
the time he reported in the Firm’s system
over a six-year period. However, concerning
another client that was billed during
February 2008 for time Manghera recorded,
the General Counsel asserted they believed
the Firm billed at least one other client
$3,362.55 in fees and expenses that Manghera
billed for responding to the U.S. Patent
office when he never filed the response.
Manghera asserted through his counsel that
he never intended to bill for work not
performed, and if he did, it was the result
of improper timekeeping.
|
|
Upon learning of the foreign patent offices’
rejections of client patent applications, by
failing to then consult with the affected
clients regarding continued pursuit of the
applications and the direction of the
representation generally, Manghera violated
former SCR 20:1.2(a), effective prior to
July 1, 2007, that stated, in pertinent
part, “A lawyer shall abide by a client’s
decisions concerning the objectives of
representation, subject to paragraphs (c),
(d) and (e), and shall consult with the
client as to the means by which they are to
be pursued,” and current SCR 20:1.2(a),
effective July 1, 2007, that states, in
pertinent part, “A lawyer shall abide by a
client's decisions concerning the objectives
of representation and, as required by SCR
20:1.4, shall consult with the client as to
the means by which they are to be pursued. A
lawyer may take such action on behalf of the
client as is impliedly authorized to carry
out the representation. A lawyer shall abide
by a client's decision whether to settle a
matter.”
|
|
By failing to timely advance his clients’
interests and complete work on foreign
patent matters, Manghera violated SCR 20:1.3
that states, “A lawyer shall act with
reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client.”
|
|
By failing to inform clients of the
rejection of foreign patent applications,
Manghera failed to inform those clients of a
significant case development, and therefore
violated former SCR 20:1.4(a), effective
prior to July 1, 2007, that stated, “A
lawyer shall keep a client reasonably
informed about the status of a matter and
promptly comply with reasonable requests for
information,” and current SCR 20:1.4(a)(3)
that states, “A lawyer shall … keep the
client reasonably informed about the status
of the matter.”
|
|
By failing to explain to his clients the
ramifications of the rejection of foreign
patent applications, Manghera violated SCR
20:1.4(b) that states, “A lawyer shall
explain a matter to the extent reasonably
necessary to permit the client to make
informed decisions regarding the
representation.”
|
|
By intentionally communicating false
information to clients regarding work
performed, Manghera violated SCR 20:8.4(c)
that states, “It is professional misconduct
for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
misrepresentation.”
|
|
By submitting hours to the Firm for work he
had not actually performed, Manghera
violated SCR 20:8.4(c) that states, “It is
professional misconduct for a lawyer to
engage in conduct involving dishonesty,
fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.”
Atty. Manghera has no prior discipline.
In accordance with SCR 22.09(3), Attorney
Peter Manghera is hereby publicly
reprimanded.
|