|
Atty. Robert E. Haney (“Haney”), a Wisconsin
bar member since 1995, practices law in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202.
On November 6, 2006, a man pled
guilty to one count of repeated 1st degree
sexual assault of a child and one count of
exposing a child to harmful material.
On February 16, 2007, following the
withdrawal of the man’s previous counsel,
Haney was appointed by the State Public
Defender (“SPD”) to represent the man.
On March 23, 2007, Haney filed a
written motion to withdraw the man’s guilty
plea informing the court that the state’s
victim-witness recanted. On March 30, 2007,
the man appeared in court with Haney. After
hearing arguments, the court determined that
the defense did not meet the burden of proof
by the preponderance of the evidence and the
court denied the motion. On May 15, 2007,
the court sentenced the man to prison for
six years followed by a period of six years
extended supervision for a total sentence of
twelve years.
Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 809.30(2)
(a) and (b), if a convicted person desires
to pursue postconviction relief, the
attorney representing a person at sentencing
or at the time of the final adjudication
must continue representation by filing a
Notice of Intent (“NOI”) to Pursue
Postconviction Relief and must do so within
twenty (20) days after the date of
sentencing or final adjudication.
On May 15, 2007, the man and Haney
signed a Notice of Right to Seek
Postconviction Relief (“NOR”) form. On the
form, the man acknowledged he discussed his
right to seek postconviction relief with
Haney and the man checked the box that
said, “I plan to seek postconviction
relief.” Haney certified that he understood
his duty to file the NOI within 20 days of
sentencing.
On March 7, 2008, the man submitted
a grievance regarding Haney. According to
the man, Haney failed to file an appeal,
visited him only once in the House of
Correction (“HOC”), and never answered his
or his family’s letters or phone
calls.
By letter dated March 13, 2008, OLR
requested that the man provide copies of his
correspondence to Haney. In response, OLR
received copies of two letters. In the
first letter, dated July 16, 2007, the man
requested that Haney send all of his
paperwork to either his mother or his
fiancé. In the second letter dated December
4, 2007, the man specifically asked Haney
about the status of his appeal and stated:
At sentencing, I requested that you put
in
for an appeal but I have heard nothing from
you since May 2007. I can only assume that
my request to you for a [sic] appeal went
unanswered. Just like ever [sic] other
request I have asked of you since you were
appointed to my case. At this time I must
make these final request [sic] again; 1. I
am requesting again that you appeal my
case. 2. I am requesting that you send me
the complete discovery and all docoments
[sic] I in my case. 3. I am requesting that
you also send me all transcripts in my case.
In a March 17, 2008 letter to the
State Public Defender, Appellate Division,
the man stated his concerns as follows:
I am requesting an attorney in the above
entitle [sic] case. In May 2007, I
requested an appeal in my case through my
then attorney. Since then, I have heard
nothing from the attorney or the Courts.
Would you please assist me with this
matter.
In a March 21, 2008 responsive
letter to the man, First Assistant State
Public Defender Patricia Flood informed the
man that counsel was not appointed in his
case because the NOI was not filed within 20
days of the entry of the judgment of
conviction and that Haney had been asked to
file a motion to extend the deadlines and
then file the NOI.
On April 1, 2008, Haney filed a
Motion to Extend Time for Filing an NOI and
an NOI on behalf of the man, and on April 8,
2008, the court entered an order extending
the deadline to file the NOI. In the
motion, Haney stated:
When I turned in the file I forgot to
mark
the Notice of Intent box that is on the
outside of the file. Therefore my staff was
unaware that a Notice of Intent was to be
prepared for [the man’s] case. [The man] is
not responsible for any delay with regard to
the filing his notice of intent.
On April 14, 2008, OLR intake staff
sent the man’s grievance to Haney via
facsimile and on April 29, 2008, in response
to the grievance, Haney transmitted a
facsimile to OLR containing his billing
notes for the man case. Haney used the
billing notes to submit bills on-line to the
Office of the SPD. According to the notes,
Haney visited the man at the HOC on March 1,
2007, March 22, 2007, and May 11, 2007.
By letter dated May 7, 2008, OLR
notified Haney that the man’s grievance had
been designated for formal investigation and
that Haney was required to submit a complete
written response that fully and fairly
disclosed all facts and circumstances
pertaining to the alleged misconduct.
In a responsive submission to OLR
dated June 9, 2008, Haney acknowledged his
failure to timely file an NOI for the man.
However, Haney stated he had no specific
recollection of receiving either the July
16, 2007 letter or the December 4, 2007
letter from the man. Haney did remember the
man writing about transcripts, and he told
OLR, “I do seem to remember responding to
him about that, but I cannot swear to it.
It would be extremely unusual for him not to
get such a response.”
By letter dated June 20, 2008, with
a copy to the man, OLR asked Haney to
comment on the discrepancy between the man’s
assertion that Haney visited him only once
at the HOC and the billing notes he used to
submit bills on-line indicating he made
three visits to the man at the HOC.
In a letter to OLR dated June 24,
2008, the man stated that he believed he met
Haney in March of 2007, and he further
stated:
Attorney Haney did not come to the House
Of
Correction to talk to me, nor did he let me
know what he was going to do regarding my
case. He never talked to me about any
motions or pleas and the copy of the invoice
that he said he visited me three (3) times
is misleading and wrong! If you check with
the House Of Correction’s records showing
how many times he allegedly visited me, they
would show that he is lying; you would find
out that he never came to visit or talked to
me; and that is the truth. The House Of
Correction should still have the book on
when attorneys come to the House Of
Correction to visit their clients. Had he
came [sic] to the House Of Correction, the
Prison Officials would have called me down
stairs for an attorney visit. I really
thought & believed that Attorney Haney would
come visit me before my sentencing day. He
never showed up! Once, again, the only time
that I saw him was on the day I was
sentenced.
In a responsive letter to OLR dated
July 14, 2008, Haney enclosed one page from
a sentencing transcript and acknowledged
that he could not reconcile the discrepancy
between the man’s assertion of only one
visit and his claimed three visits on the
invoice he submitted, however Haney stated:
Thus, at this time, there is [the man’s]
version that I visited him once in March at
the House of Correction, my bill which
states there were two meetings in March and
one in May at the House of Correction, and
the sheriff’s records indicating I met with
[the man] once at the Milwaukee County Jail
in April. There is also the sentencing
transcript indicating that I met with [the
man ] prior to sentencing to review the PSI
with him.
The portion of the May 15, 2007
sentencing transcript provided by Haney
indicated that the man concurred that Haney
reviewed his file with him and that there
were no corrections. The transcript did not
contain specific information concerning a
visit at the HOC.
In his July 14, 2008 response, Haney
referenced a number of discrepancies in
various allegations made by the man, to
include his allegation that he never
received paperwork to sign when the NOI was
signed, his allegation that Haney never
talked to him about the motion to withdraw
his plea when WCCA indicated that the man
was present in court for that motion, and
his assertion that he was not guilty after
he plead guilty.
On-line records available through
Wisconsin Circuit Court Access (WCCA)
indicate that Haney made six court
appearances in the man’s case between
February 16, 2007 and May 15, 2007, and that
the man was present at two of the six
hearings, to include a March 30, 2007 motion
hearing and the May 15, 2007 sentencing
hearing.
In the course of the investigation,
OLR sent an inquiry to the Milwaukee County
HOC concerning the disputed visitations.
The HOC responded with a letter dated August
1, 2008 and attached the visitation records
for the man while he was in the HOC from
September 4, 2006 through May 19, 2007. The
cover letter from the HOC stated:
In your letter, you requested several
dates
specifically March 01, 2007, March 22, 2007,
and May 11, 2007. The only record that
shows Attorney Robert Haney visiting said
inmate is on March 22, 2007. Had there been
additional visits it would have been
documented in our database. Be advised
there is no additional record of any visits
by Mr. Haney.
OLR forwarded the July 20, 2008
correspondence from the man and the August
1, 2008 correspondence from the HOC to
Haney. In a responsive letter to OLR dated
August 21, 2008, Haney stated that he had
very little independent recollection of
Haney’s matter, that his records indicated
that he met with the man on three occasions
at the HOC, and that he denied in any way
intentionally making misrepresentations
during the course of OLR’s investigation.
|
|
By failing to file a Notice of Intent to
Pursue Postconviction Relief within 20 days
of the man’s sentencing, as required by
Statute and as Haney certified was his duty
on the Notice of Right to Seek
Postconviction Relief, Haney violated SCR
20:1.3, that states, “A lawyer shall act
with reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client.”
|
|
By failing to communicate with his client
after sentencing and by failing to respond
to his client’s letters or to otherwise keep
his client informed as to the status of the
client’s appeal, Haney violated former SCR
20:1.4(a), that applies to misconduct
committed 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 SCR 20:1.4(a)
(3) and (4), effective July 1, 2007, that
states, “A lawyer shall keep the client
reasonably informed about the status of the
matter; and promptly comply with reasonable
requests by the client for information.”
|
|
By misrepresenting to the Office of the
State Public Defender and to OLR intake
staff the number of visits he made to his
client, Haney violated SCR 20:8.4(c), which
states, “It is professional misconduct for a
lawyer to…engage in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
misrepresentation.”
|
|
Haney has one prior private reprimand,
imposed in 2001.
|