|
ATTORNEY disciplinary
proceeding. Attorney's license
suspended.
¶1 PER CURIAM. The Office of Lawyer
Regulation (OLR) has filed a complaint
seeking discipline identical to that imposed
in Illinois, where Attorney Sandra Coplien
was suspended for six months for
professional misconduct. Attorney John R.
Decker was appointed referee. After a
default hearing, Referee Decker concluded
Attorney Coplien is subject to reciprocal
discipline in Wisconsin. Referee Decker
recommended Attorney Coplien be suspended
for a period of six months and that she pay
the costs of this proceeding.
¶2 Because no appeal has been filed, we
review the referee's report pursuant to SCR
22.17(2). Upon our independent review of
the record, we approve and adopt the
referee's findings and conclusions. We
determine that by virtue of having been
suspended in Illinois for violation of the
Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct,
Attorney Coplien is subject to reciprocal
discipline pursuant to SCR 22.22. Attorney
Coplien's license to practice law in
Wisconsin is suspended for a period of six
months and she is directed to pay the costs
of this proceeding.
|
|
¶3 Attorney Sandra K. Coplien was
admitted to practice law in Wisconsin on
September 1, 1983. She was admitted to
practice law in Illinois on November 1,
1982. Effective October 31, 2001, Attorney
Coplien's Wisconsin law license was
suspended for failure to pay dues. Her
Wisconsin law license remains suspended.
|
|
¶4 On April 10, 2009, the OLR filed a
complaint alleging that Attorney Coplien
committed two counts of professional
misconduct and asking this court to suspend
Attorney Coplien's Wisconsin law license for
six months as discipline reciprocal to that
imposed upon Attorney Coplien in Illinois.
Following the appointment of Referee Decker,
the OLR filed a notice of motion and motion
for default judgment. On December 10, 2009,
the referee scheduled a December 18, 2009,
hearing on the OLR's motion, noting that
failure to appear could result in a default
judgment.
¶5 On April 15, 2010, the referee filed
his report and recommendation. The referee
stated that Attorney Coplien had been served
with the complaint and motion and failed to
appear or contest the proceedings. The
referee incorporated into his findings the
allegations of the OLR complaint.
¶6 The misconduct upon which Attorney
Coplien's Illinois suspension was based
consisted of two counts of misconduct. In
the first matter, Attorney Coplien's
client's ex-spouse filed three separate
petitions against Attorney Coplien's client
regarding change of visitation and child
support. Attorney Coplien failed to inform
her client of these various filings, failed
to respond to these petitions, and missed
scheduled court dates. Attorney Coplien
failed to respond to her client's numerous
attempts to contact Attorney Coplien by
telephone. See In re Sandra Kay
Coplien, IL
Supreme Court No. MR 22301, Commission No.
07CH45.
¶7 In addition, Attorney Coplien failed
to cooperate with the Illinois Attorney
Registration and Disciplinary Commission
("ARDC"). ARDC found Attorney Coplien to be
uncooperative and nonresponsive.
|
|
¶8 Attorney Coplien's misconduct
violated the Illinois Rules of Professional
Conduct ("IRPC") by: (a) failing to act with
reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client in violation of Rule
1.3 of the IRPC; (b) failing to keep a
client reasonably informed about the status
of a matter in violation of Rule 1.4(a) of
the IRPC; (c) failing to make reasonable
efforts to expedite litigation consistent
with the interests of the client in
violation of Rule 3.2 of the IRPC; (d)
failing to respond to a lawful demand for
information from a disciplinary authority in
violation of Rule 8.1(a)(2) of the IRPC; (e)
conduct that is prejudicial to the
administration of justice in violation of
Rule 4(a)(4) of the IRPC (two counts); and
(f) conduct which tends to defeat the
administration of justice or to bring the
courts or the legal profession into
disrepute in violation of Supreme Court Rule
770 of the IRPC (two counts).
|
|
¶9 Referee Decker noted that Attorney
Coplien failed to notify OLR of her Illinois
suspension. OLR first learned of Attorney
Coplien's Illinois discipline ruling in
February 2009 through the American Bar
Association's Center for Professional
Responsibility. Accordingly, the referee
found that Attorney Coplien failed to notify
the OLR of the Illinois discipline within 20
days of its effective date. Attorney
Coplien also failed to inform the court of
any reason why discipline identical to that
imposed in Illinois should not be imposed in
Wisconsin.
¶10 The referee concluded Attorney
Coplien was in default and the allegations
contained in the OLR's complaint were deemed
admitted. The referee concluded Attorney
Coplien had violated SCR 22.22(1) by failing
to notify the OLR within 20 days of the
effective date of her Illinois suspension.
The referee concluded Attorney Coplien is
subject to reciprocal discipline and
recommended her license to practice law in
Wisconsin be suspended and that she be
ordered to pay the costs of this proceeding.
¶11 We approve and adopt the referee's
findings and conclusions, which are
unchallenged. By virtue of having been
suspended by the Illinois Supreme Court for
her violation of the Illinois Rules of
Professional Conduct, Attorney Coplien is
subject to reciprocal discipline in
Wisconsin pursuant to SCR 22.22.
¶12 We suspend Attorney Coplien's
license to practice law in Wisconsin for a
period of six months, and we direct Attorney
Coplien to bear the costs of this
proceeding, which were $1,407.68 as of May
5, 2010.
¶13 IT IS ORDERED that the license of
Sandra K. Coplien to practice law in
Wisconsin is suspended for a period of six
months, effective the date of this order.
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 90
days of the date of this order, Sandra K.
Coplien pay to the Office of Lawyer
Regulation the costs of the proceeding.
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Sandra K.
Coplien shall comply with SCR 22.26
regarding the duties of a person whose
license to practice law in Wisconsin has
been suspended.
|