This Amended Public Reprimand With Consent
supersedes the Public Reprimand With Consent
signed on 8/19/11. The original reprimand
did not include updated restitution
information.
In October 2006, Attorney Alf R.H.R. Langan
sent an advertising letter to a couple whom
he identified through public records as
having significant tax debts. The letter
promoted Langan as an experienced tax
attorney who had an “amazing success rate”
in helping taxpayers obtain “dramatic
reductions” in their tax debt. Langan’s
letter asserted that he was so successful
and in so much demand that he could accept
only a limited number of new tax clients.
In fact, Langan had never submitted an Offer
in Compromise (“OIC”) regarding a client’s
tax debt at the time he sent this letter,
and he had little experience in dealing with
tax issues. The letter was not labeled as
an “Advertisement,” and a copy of the letter
was not filed with the Office of Lawyer
Regulation (“OLR”). By making false or
misleading communications about his
services, Langan violated former SCR 20:7.1
(a), in effect prior to July 1, 2007. By
failing to conspicuously label his letter
with the word “Advertisement,” and by
failing to file a copy of the letter with
OLR, Langan violated former SCR 20:7.3(b),
also in effect prior to July 1, 2007.
The couple hired Langan and paid him a flat
fee of $3,000 for the representation. The
November 7, 2007 letter of engagement stated
that Langan would contact the IRS and obtain
a copy of the couple’s Individual Master
File, and he would prepare an OIC for the
total amount owing to the IRS and attempt to
negotiate with the IRS to have them accept
the OIC. Langan thereafter contacted the
IRS agent handling the couple’s case to
inform him that Langan was representing the
couple, and Langan obtained a copy of the
couple’s master file from the IRS, but he
failed to take any action to try to
compromise their tax debt. Approximately
three months after he was hired, although
telling the IRS agent that he would file an
OIC within the next few weeks, Langan
advised the couple that their financial
situation might prevent him from
successfully filing an OIC. He did not take
into consideration, however, the couple’s
personal finances as well as the financial
situation of their business. An additional
two months passed without any negotiations
ensuing, at which time further tax levies
were taken and the couple’s business was
forced to close. Even after the couple’s
tax accountant implored Langan to file an
OIC, Langan did not do so.
On May 30, 2007, the couple informed Langan
that they were revoking his tax power of
attorney and were seeking the return of
their $3,000 fee. Langan responded that he
was prepared to file an OIC, and declined to
refund the fee, maintaining that he had
substantially performed the services for
which he was hired. The OIC that Langan
later submitted to OLR, however, did not
include any information other than some
basic identifying information such as
addresses and social security numbers.
Under Item 7, the amount offered in
compromise, the line was filled in with two
question marks. Under Item 9, the
explanation of circumstances, the form
contained a note stating, “([Client] –
please tell us what circumstances you want
us to explain to the IRS).” Item 10, the
source of funds, was left blank.
|
By failing to file an Offer in Compromise or
otherwise timely negotiate a compromise of
the couple’s tax debt for six months after
he was hired, Langan failed to act with
reasonable diligence and promptness on
behalf of a client, contrary to SCR 20:1.3.
By declining to refund any part of the
unearned fee, Langan violated former SCR
20:1.16(d), in effect through June 30, 2007,
and current SCR 20:1.16(d), in effect
thereafter.
|
The Wisconsin Lawyers’ Fund for Client
Protection paid to Larry and Terry Johnson
the sum of $3,000.00. As a condition of
this public reprimand, Langan paid $3,000.00
in restitution to the Wisconsin Lawyers’
Fund for Client Protection.
In a second matter, Langan represented a
client in divorce and post-divorce matters
between 2003 and 2006. The court awarded
joint custody of the couple’s minor son to
the client and her ex-husband, and initially
gave Langan’s client primary placement.
After police were twice called to the
client’s home for incidents involving the
consumption of alcohol in the presence of
the son, however, with the second incident
resulting in misdemeanor charges being
brought against the client, the father
brought a motion seeking sole custody and
placement of the child.
Four days before a hearing on the father’s
motion, Langan notified the father that his
client intended to move with the child to
Colorado, where she had recently accepted a
job. As required by state statute, the
notice was sent to the father by certified
mail, but that was not indicated on the face
of the letter. A copy of the notice letter
was not sent to the court.
At the hearing, the father was temporarily
awarded sole custody and primary placement
of the son, and the client was permitted
only limited, supervised visitation. The
client was ordered to undergo alcohol
treatment, and the court stated that it
would review the situation after that
treatment was concluded. The father also
filed a formal objection to the client’s
notice to remove the son to Colorado.
The client moved to Colorado without her son
but continued to return to Wisconsin to
exercise her supervised visitation. At the
client’s request, Langan filed a motion to
allow the client to take her son to
Colorado, although she was still permitted
only supervised visitation and had not yet
fully completed alcohol treatment as ordered
by the court. At a hearing on Langan’s
motion, the judge questioned whether
statutory notice requirements had been met
and informed Langan that he was required to
provide a copy of the certified mail receipt
establishing service on the father. Langan
subsequently informed the court that he had
given the receipt to his client who did know
that she was required to keep it, although
Langan later found the certified mail
receipt in his own file. Langan did not
send a new certified mail notice. The court
ruled that the statutory notice requirements
had not been met and that the court would
not consider the client’s request to remove
the son to Colorado.
A stipulated agreement was thereafter
reached between the client and her ex-
husband that gave the client unsupervised
placement for one weekend per month and
placement in Colorado during the summer.
The client nevertheless wanted Langan to
continue to seek primary placement, or
placement during the school year, in
Colorado. Another evidentiary hearing was
held, but the court declined to make any
changes. Langan then advised the client,
who had already paid Langan almost $27,000
in legal fees and owed approximately $11,000
more, that if she still wished to pursue a
change of placement she would need to
satisfy the full amount of her indebtedness
to Langan and pay an advance toward future
fees.
Langan provided the client with the name of
a broker who could potentially provide the
funds needed to pay his fees by buying out
the remaining payments the client had coming
under a 1988 structured settlement.
Although she was selling her structured
payments at a greatly reduced percentage of
their present value, the client decided to
go forward with the sale. She was required
to be represented by counsel in the sale,
and Langan agreed to provide that
representation at no cost. Although the
primary purpose of the sale was to satisfy
her indebtedness to Langan and pay him
advance fees for future representation,
Langan did not advise the client about any
potential conflict of interest between his
interests in receiving the sale proceeds and
the client’s interests in proceeding with
the sale. Langan also failed to determine
and accurately advise the client regarding
the tax consequences of the sale, and made
errors in providing information regarding
the amount of the sale proceeds and the
percentage by which the present value of the
payments was being discounted.
After the structured settlement sale was
arranged, Langan prepared and mailed to the
court another motion asking the court to
reconsider its decision on placement. With
this motion Langan produced the missing
certified mail receipt that he had located
in his file six months earlier, shortly
after the court had denied his first motion
on statutory grounds. Langan sent his
motion to the court, opposing counsel and
the guardian ad litem on a Friday for a
hearing scheduled for the following
Tuesday. The notices were therefore
received on a Monday for a hearing scheduled
to take place the following day. The court
denied Langan’s motion on the grounds that
it had not been timely served, and that
Langan should have made a much more diligent
search for the missing certified mail
receipt as soon as it was detected to be
missing.
After the client paid Langan $14,000 from
the structured settlement proceeds, and
Langan provided further representation on
other post-divorce matters, the client hired
new counsel and moved back to Wisconsin. In
the fall of 2006, the client asked Langan to
resume representation of her on custody and
placement issues. Langan told the client
that he would undertake new representation
only if the client signed a release that
absolved Langan from all liability for any
and all alleged errors, acts or omissions
performed or not performed by Langan during
the course of his prior representation.
Langan did not advise the client that
independent representation was appropriate
with regard to the release. The client
signed the release without consulting
independent counsel, and Langan provided
further services.
With regard to this case, Langan failed to
provide competent representation to the
client, contrary to SCR 20:1.1, as follows:
|
• He failed to determine and advise
the client regarding the tax consequences of
the structured settlement sale and failed to
give the client accurate information
regarding the terms of the sale;
|
• He failed to comply with statutory
notice requirements regarding the notice of
intent to remove the son to Colorado and
failed to perform a diligent search of his
file for the missing certified mail receipt
or, in the alternative, issue a new
certified mail notice;
• He failed to comply with statutory
notice requirements by providing a motion to
opposing counsel only one day before a
hearing was scheduled on the motion.
|
By representing the client with regard to
the sale of her structured settlement
payments for the purpose of paying his own
past and future legal fees, without
consulting with the client about the
possible effect that Langan’s personal
receipt of those funds could have on his
advice to the client and without obtaining
the client’s written consent after
consultation, Langan violation former SCR
20:1.7(b), in effect prior to July 1, 2007,
which stated in relevant part, “A lawyer
shall not represent a client if the
representation of that client may be
materially limited … by the lawyer’s own
interests unless … (1) the lawyer reasonably
believes the representation will not be
adversely affected; and (2) the client
consents in writing after consultation.”
|
Finally, by having the client sign a release
that absolved Langan from any liability
arising from the prior representation
without advising the client of the
appropriateness of independent
representation, and without the client
obtaining such independent representation,
Langan violated former SCR 20:1.8(h), in
effect prior to July 1, 2007, which
stated, “A lawyer shall not make an
agreement prospectively limiting the
lawyer’s liability to a client for
malpractice unless permitted by law and the
client is independently represented in
making the agreement, or settle a claim for
such liability with an unrepresented client
or former client without first advising that
person in writing that independent
representation is appropriate in connection
therewith.”
Attorney Langan has no prior disciplinary
history. In accordance with SCR 22.09(3),
Attorney Alf R. H. R. Langan is hereby
publicly reprimanded for the above
misconduct.
|