|
ATTORNEY disciplinary
proceeding. Attorney's license revoked.
¶1 PER CURIUM. We review a referee's
recommendation that the license of Clay F.
Teasdale to practice law in Wisconsin should
be revoked as discipline for his
professional misconduct. We agree that the
egregious nature of Attorney Teasdale's
professional misconduct warrants
revocation. This is the third time the
court has had occasion to discipline
Attorney Teasdale for professional
misconduct and the extensive misconduct
considered in this proceeding establishes
his unfitness to be licensed to represent
others in the Wisconsin legal system. In
addition, restitution to certain former
clients is appropriate as set forth herein,
and we further order Attorney Teasdale to
pay the costs of this proceeding.
|
|
¶2 Attorney Teasdale was admitted to
practice law in Wisconsin in 1983. He has
been under temporary suspension since
January 23, 2004, for willful failure to
cooperate with an Office of Lawyer
Regulation (OLR) grievance investigation
concerning his conduct. He has received two
public reprimands. In 1995, Attorney
Teasdale consented to the (former) Board of
Attorneys Professional Responsibility
(BAPR)'s imposition of a public reprimand
for failing to file a timely notice of
appeal, failing to comply with a client's
reasonable requests for information
regarding the appeal, failing to inform his
client of a magistrate's recommendation for
a denial of disability benefits and of the
court's dismissal, and for failing to
cooperate with BAPR's investigation.
¶3 In February 2005, Attorney Teasdale
was publicly reprimanded for failing to
respond to a deposition notice in violation
of SCR 20:3.4(d), and for failing to notify
his client of the deposition, in violation
of SCR 20:1.4(a). He was ordered to pay
restitution to the client. See In re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Teasdale,
2005 WI 12, 278 Wis. 2d 76, 692 N.W.2d 244.
|
|
¶4 The complaint filed by the OLR in
the matter now before the court consisted of
some 293 separately numbered paragraphs
describing 75 counts of misconduct involving
21 separate client matters, as well as one
count stemming from an inquiry made by a
circuit court judge regarding Teasdale's
conduct. Teasdale repeatedly failed to
participate in the disciplinary proceeding,
despite efforts to engage him in the
process. Eventually, the OLR moved for a
default judgment. That motion was granted
on March 17, 2005. Teasdale did not appeal
from the ensuing report and recommendation
filed by the referee, Timothy Vocke.
|
|
¶5 Because this matter comes before us
in the context of a default judgment, the
extensive allegations against Attorney
Teasdale will be only briefly summarized
here. It is noteworthy that all 75 of the
allegations of misconduct involved matters
in which Attorney Teasdale: (1) continued to
practice law despite being under suspension;
(2) failed to inform his clients of this
fact; and then (3) subsequently refused to
cooperate when the OLR attempted to
investigate the matter.
¶6 Other allegations made with respect
to specific clients demonstrate that
Attorney Teasdale failed to do any work on a
matter, repeatedly failed to prepare written
contingency fee agreements, repeatedly
failed to keep clients informed as to the
status of their cases, repeatedly failed to
return client files or property or keep such
property in trust, and repeatedly failed to
act with reasonable diligence and promptness
in matters. Consequently, the referee
concluded, and we agree, that Attorney
Teasdale violated numerous disciplinary
rules.
|
|
¶7 More specifically, the referee
concluded, and we agree, that Attorney
Teasdale failed to act with reasonable
diligence and promptness in representing a
client in violation of SCR 20:1.3 in the
following three matters: J.W. (Count 1),
J.C. (Count 29), and A.C. (Count 49).
|
|
¶8 The referee also concluded, and we
agree, that Attorney Teasdale failed to keep
a client reasonably informed about the
status of the matter and promptly comply
with reasonable requests for information in
violation of SCR 20:1.4(a) in the following
matters: J.W. (Count 2), D.B. (Count 24),
J.C. (Count 30), M.S. (Count 32), R.K.
(Count 36), D.J. (Count 38), H.B. (Count
41), A.C. (Count 50), C.B. (Count 55),
M.L.T. (Count 59), and V.W. (Count 67).
|
|
¶9 The referee concluded, and we agree,
that Attorney Teasdale failed to prepare a
written contingency fee agreement in
violation of SCR 20:1.5(c) in each of the
following matters: C.L. (Count 17), D.B.
(Count 23), J.C. (Count 28), R.K. (Count
35), and A.C. (Count 48).
|
|
¶10 In addition, the referee concluded,
and we agree, that Attorney Teasdale failed
to hold in trust, separate from his own
property, his client's property that was in
his possession in connection with a
representation in violation of SCR 20:1.15
(a) in the following matters: E.C. (Count
5), A.C. (Count 51), and M.L.T. (Count 60).
|
|
¶11 The referee concluded, and we agree,
that Attorney Teasdale failed, upon
termination of representation, to surrender
property and papers to which his client was
entitled contrary to SCR 20:1.16(d) in the
following matters: J.W. (Count 3), E.C.
(Count 6), D.B. (Count 25), H.B. (Count 42),
R.L. (Count 45), A.C. (Count 52), C.B.
(Count 56), M.L.T. (Count 61), N.W. (Count
64), and V.W. (Count 68).
|
|
¶12 The referee also concluded, and we
agree, that Teasdale failed to cooperate
with the OLR's investigation contrary to SCR
21.15(4) and SCR 22.03(6) in violation of
SCR 20:8.4(f) in the following matters: J.W.
(Count 4), Judge Miron (Count 10), D.M.
(Count 12), B.D. (Count 14), N.K. (Count
16), C.L. (Count 19), C.S. (Count 22), D.B.
(Count 27), J.C. (Count 31), M.S. (Count
34), R.K. (Count 37), D.J. (Count 40), H.B.
(Count 44), R.L. (Count 47), A.C. (Count
54), C.B. (Count 58), M.L.T. (Count 63),
N.W. (Count 66), V.W. (Count 70), K.R.
(Count 73), and C.J. (Count 75).
|
|
¶13 The referee concluded, and we agree,
that Attorney Teasdale failed to comply with
the requirements of a suspended attorney as
outlined in SCR 22.26(1)(a)—(c) violating a
supreme court rule regulating the conduct of
lawyers, contrary to SCR 20:8.4(f) in the
following matters: E.C. (Count 7), Judge
Miron inquiry (Count 8), B.D. (Count 13),
N.K. (Count 15), C.L. (Count 18), C.S.
(Count 21), D.B. (Count 26), M.S. (Count
33), D.J. (Count 39), H.B. (Count 43), R.L.
(Count 46), A.C. (Count 53), C.B. (Count
57), M.L.T. (Count 62), N.W. (Count 65),
V.W. (Count 69), and K.R. (Count 72).
|
|
¶14 The referee also concluded, and we
agree, that Teasdale failed to comply with
the requirements of a suspended or revoked
attorney as outlined in SCR 22.26(2), thus
violating SCR 20.8.4(f) in the matter of
Judge Miron (Count 9), D.M. (Count 11), C.S.
(Count 20), K.R. (Count 71), and C.J. (Count
74).
|
|
¶15 Therefore, we adopt the referee's
findings of fact, as they have not been
shown to be clearly erroneous, and we adopt
the conclusions of law based on those
findings. We note that the referee
commented on several aggravating
circumstances here, including Attorney
Teasdale's prior discipline, the sheer
number of disciplinary violations, and the
fact that he left many clients "abandoned."
It is clear that revocation is warranted
here and, as the referee noted, "Teasdale
apparently does not care what happens to his
license to practice law." We agree with the
referee that Attorney Teasdale, by his
extensive misconduct in this proceeding, has
established that he is unfit to be licensed
to practice law.
|
|
¶16 The referee also recommended that we
require Attorney Teasdale to pay
restitution. This court issued an order to
show cause regarding the appropriate
restitution for certain clients. Attorney
Teasdale did not respond to the court's
order. Based on the record evidence before
us and the response received from the OLR,
we direct Attorney Teasdale to pay
restitution to client J.W. in the amount of
$300, to client A.C. in the amount of $100,
and to client K.R. in the amount of $200.
¶17 In addition, the Wisconsin Lawyers'
Fund for Client Security (WLF), f/k/a
the "Client Security Fund" approved
reimbursement of unearned fees owed to three
of Teasdale's clients. See Complaint at
¶28
(noting CSF approved reimbursement of $950
for E.C.); ¶243 (approving reimbursement of
$925 for M.L.T.); ¶291 (approving
reimbursement of $500 for C.J.). We
therefore direct Attorney Teasdale to
compensate the WLF in the amount of $2,375.
Finally, we adopt the referee's
recommendation that Attorney Teasdale be
required to pay the costs of this
proceeding, which total $1,446.51 as of the
Statement of Costs filed in April 2005.
¶18 IT IS ORDERED that the license of
Clay F. Teasdale to practice law in
Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of
this order.
¶19 It IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60
days of the date of this order Attorney
Teasdale shall pay full restitution to J.W.,
A.C., and K.R., and shall reimburse the
Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Security,
as set forth herein.
¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60
days of the date of this order Attorney
Teasdale shall pay to the Office of Lawyer
Regulation the costs of this disciplinary
proceeding.
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney
Teasdale comply with the provisions of SCR
22.26 concerning the duties of a person
whose license to practice law in Wisconsin
has been revoked.
|