Wisconsin Court System
Wisconsin Attorneys' Professional Discipline Compendium
Public Reprimand of Alf R. H. R. Langan
2011-OLR-12
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.