|
ATTORNEY disciplinary
proceeding. Attorney publicly
reprimanded.
¶1 PER CURIAM. In this reciprocal
discipline proceeding, we must determine
whether to publicly reprimand Attorney
Ronald L. Brandt as discipline identical to
that imposed on him by the Board of Bar
Overseers of the Supreme Judicial Court of
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (the
Massachusetts Board).
|
|
¶2 On May 25, 2011, the Office of
Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a complaint
and order to answer against Attorney Brandt
pursuant to SCR 22.22. The OLR also filed a
motion asking this court to direct Attorney
Brandt to inform the court of any claim
under SCR 22.22(3) that the imposition of
reciprocal discipline would be unwarranted.
¶3 On June 7, 2011, the court granted
the OLR's motion and directed Attorney
Brandt to so inform the court of any claim
under SCR 22.22(3) by June 27, 2011.
Attorney Brandt did not file any response to
the court's order by the specified date.
|
|
¶4 On July 29, 2011, Attorney Brandt
and the OLR filed a stipulation. The
stipulation repeats the factual allegations
contained in the OLR's complaint, which are
drawn from the Massachusetts disciplinary
materials. In the stipulation, Attorney
Brandt acknowledges that he received a
public reprimand in Massachusetts and agrees
that he should receive a public reprimand in
Wisconsin as reciprocal discipline. He
states that he does not claim any of
the "defenses" to the imposition of
reciprocal discipline set forth in SCR 22.22
(3). The stipulation contains the proper
averments that Attorney Brandt understands
the allegations against him and the
ramifications of the requested discipline,
that he understands his rights to contest
the allegations and to consult with and
retain counsel, and that his entry into the
stipulation has been made knowingly and
voluntarily.
¶5 Attorney Brandt was admitted to the
practice of law in Wisconsin in June 1972.
He was admitted to the practice of law in
Massachusetts in January 1982. The most
recent address provided by Attorney Brandt
to the State Bar of Wisconsin is located in
Quincy, Massachusetts.
¶6 Attached to the OLR's complaint and
the stipulation are copies of an "Order of
Public Reprimand" and an attached summary of
the disciplinary proceedings issued by the
Massachusetts Board on April 8, 2010. It
appears from the summary that the public
reprimand resulted from a stipulation of
facts and joint recommendation for
discipline executed by Attorney Brandt and
the Massachusetts regulatory authorities.
¶7 According to the summary, a client
retained Attorney Brandt in October 2005 to
represent him in a medical malpractice case
regarding a surgery and post-operative care
that occurred in October 2004. The client
gave copies of some of his medical records
to Attorney Brandt.
¶8 In early August 2007, Attorney
Brandt decided not to pursue the client's
medical malpractice claim. He did not
notify the client of this decision, however,
nor did he return the client's medical
records. In addition, Attorney Brandt did
not advise the client of his right to
consult other attorneys, of the applicable
statute of limitations, or of the
consequences of failing to file suit before
the expiration of the statute of
limitations. He did not take any steps to
toll the statute of limitations on the
client's behalf or to otherwise protect the
client's rights so that he could consult
with other attorneys. Indeed, for more than
2 1/2 years, from November 2005 until June
2008, Attorney Brandt never communicated
with his client. In June 2008 the client
learned for the first time that no lawsuit
had been filed on his behalf when he went to
Attorney Brandt's office to inquire.
|
|
¶9 The Massachusetts Board determined
that Attorney Brandt's failure to keep his
client informed about the status of the
matter and to advise the client of his
decision not to pursue a claim violated
Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct
(MRPC) 1.2(a), 1.3, and 1.4. It further
concluded that Attorney Brandt's decision to
terminate the representation of the client
without taking reasonably practical steps to
protect the client's interests and his
failure to return all of the client's files
to the client in a seasonable manner
violated MRPC 1.16(d).
¶10 The Massachusetts Board accepted the
parties' stipulation of facts and imposed
the requested public reprimand. It noted as
an aggravating factor that Attorney Brandt
had substantial experience in the practice
of law.
¶11 As noted above, Attorney Brandt has
not raised any of the reasons for imposing a
different level of discipline set forth in
SCR 22.22(3). Our review of the record also
discloses no reason why a different level of
discipline should be imposed in this state.
Consequently, we impose a public reprimand
under SCR 22.22(3) as discipline identical
to that imposed in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.
¶12 Because this is a reciprocal
discipline matter that has been resolved by
stipulation without the appointment of a
referee and the OLR has requested that we
not impose costs, we do not require Attorney
Brandt to pay the costs of this proceeding.
¶13 IT IS ORDERED that Ronald L. Brandt
is publicly reprimanded for his professional
misconduct.
|