|
Attorney Trish Arreazola, of Janesville,
Wisconsin, is an attorney licensed in the
State of Wisconsin since 1992.
In June of 2003, the State Public
Defender appointed Respondent to represent a
criminal defendant in two matters pending in
Dane County Circuit Court. Concurrently
with the Dane County matters, the defendant
faced charges arising out of Columbia
County.
Following the entry of pleas in both
the Dane County and Columbia County cases, a
sentence credit issue arose. According to
the client, he did not receive full credit
for the time he served in prison. A
significant gap existed between the time the
client completed his sentence in Columbia
County and the time he was sentenced in Dane
County. The client sought service credit
for the time in which he was imprisoned.
|
|
The client specifically and repeatedly
requested that Respondent handle the service
credit issue. While Respondent made some
preliminary steps to tackle the issue, she
ultimately failed to file any motion
requesting service credit for her client,
resulting in the State Public Defender
appointing new counsel on an emergency basis
to file a motion with the court and obtain a
hearing on the sentence credit issue. As a
consequence of Respondent’s failure to take
meaningful action on behalf of her client,
the client remained incarcerated months
longer than his sentence required. By
failing to take prompt or meaningful action
to file a motion with the court and seek
relief for her client, Respondent violated
SCR 20:1.3, which states, “A lawyer shall
act with reasonable diligence and promptness
in representing a client.”
|
|
From August of 2007 through January of 2008,
the client made repeated attempts, both by
telephone and by correspondence, to contact
Respondent and request information relevant
to his request for service credit and the
status of any motions filed by Respondent.
Respondent failed to respond to most of
these requests for information. The one
time Respondent communicated with her
client, she told him that she had filed a
motion for service credit with the court,
which was an untrue statement. By failing
to keep her client reasonably informed about
the status of his matter, Respondent
violated SCR 20:1.4(a), which states, in
relevant part, “(a) A lawyer shall . . . (3)
keep the client reasonably informed about
the status of a matter; . . .”
During this same time period,
Respondent’s client also made numerous
requests for information regarding the
status of his request for service credit and
what efforts Respondent was taking to
advance his claim. Respondent did not
respond to most of her client’s requests for
information. As indicated, the one time
Respondent communicated with her client, she
told him that she had filed a motion for
service credit with the court, which was an
untrue statement. The client thereafter
corresponded directly with the State Public
Defender’s Office seeking assistance in the
matter. An attorney manager from the State
Public Defender’s Office wrote Respondent on
two occasions, January 8, 2008 and January
19, 2008, specifically requesting that
Respondent address her client’s concerns and
seek the appropriate relief before the
court.
|
|
Respondent failed to respond adequately to
her client’s as well as the attorney
manager’s requests, and failed to take
further action on behalf of her client,
necessitating the emergency appointment of
new counsel to address the service credit
issue. By failing to respond to her
client’s repeated requests for information
regarding the status of her efforts, as well
as respond to requests from the State Public
Defender’s Office, Respondent violated SCR
20:1.4(a)(4), which states, in relevant
part, “(a) A lawyer shall . . . (4) promptly
comply with reasonable requests by the
client for information . . . .”
|
|
Respondent’s persistent failure to respond
to her client’s request for information
regarding the service credit issue prevented
her client from making informed decisions
regarding his representation. Accordingly,
Respondent violated SCR 20:1.4(b), which
states, in relevant part, “(b) a lawyer
shall explain a matter to the extent
reasonably necessary to permit the client to
make informed decisions regarding the
representation.”
|
|
On one occasion in December of 2007,
Respondent informed her client that she had
filed a motion seeking service credit on his
behalf. Respondent prepared a draft motion,
but never filed the motion with the court.
By misrepresenting to her client that she
had filed a motion, when in fact she had not
filed the motion, Respondent engaged in
dishonest conduct in violation of SCR 20:8.4
(c), which states, “It is professional
misconduct for a lawyer to: (c) engage in
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit
or misrepresentation.”
Respondent has no prior discipline.
In accordance with SCR 22.09,
Attorney Trish Arreazola of Janesville,
Wisconsin is hereby publicly reprimanded.
|