|
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding.
Attorney publicly reprimanded.
¶1 PER CURIAM. The Office of Lawyer
Regulation (OLR) filed a three-count
disciplinary complaint against Attorney
Michael J. Pierski alleging professional
misconduct arising from one client matter
and seeking a public reprimand. Attorney
Pierski did not contest the allegations of
misconduct. James J. Winiarski was
appointed referee. Following a hearing
limited to the issue of discipline, Referee
Winiarski recommended the imposition of a
public reprimand and costs.
¶2 No appeal has been filed. The
matter is submitted for this court's review
pursuant to SCR 22.17(2). We conclude the
record supports the referee's findings of
fact and conclusions of law. We agree with
the referee's recommendation to impose a
public reprimand. We order Attorney Pierski
to bear the costs of this proceeding.
¶3 Attorney Pierski was admitted to the
practice of law in Wisconsin in 1990. He
practices in Milwaukee. In 2003 Attorney
Pierski was issued a private reprimand for
failing to promptly deliver funds to a third
party, in violation of former SCR 20:1.15
(b), and for failing to cooperate with an
OLR investigation in violation of SCR 22.03
(6). Private Reprimand 2003-26.
¶4 In April of 2006 an attorney in
California, C.L., contacted Attorney Pierski
for the purpose of initiating ancillary
probate proceedings to transfer title of
real estate located in Milwaukee County,
Wisconsin. Attorney C.L. represented V.C.
regarding the probate of her parents'
estates in California. Under the terms of
the decedents' wills, their property located
in Wisconsin was to pass to a family trust.
¶5 Attorney Pierski agreed to handle
the matter. On April 24, 2006, C.L.'s
office forwarded copies of various documents
to Attorney Pierski for his review. On
October 26, 2006, after V.C. was appointed
special administrator in California, C.L.
sent Attorney Pierski certified copies of
the order for probate and letters of special
administration. C.L. requested that
Attorney Pierski prepare the necessary
documents for V.C.'s signature and forward
them to V.C. C.L. also requested courtesy
copies of all correspondence Attorney
Pierski sent to V.C., and requested that
Attorney Pierski contact C.L. if he required
any further documentation.
¶6 In January of 2007 C.L.'s firm sent
a facsimile message to Attorney Pierski
asking for an update and requesting that
Attorney Pierski provide a letter detailing
the current status of the ancillary
proceeding in Wisconsin for submission to
the probate court in California. Attorney
Pierski did not respond.
¶7 Over the next several months, C.L.
and V.C. attempted to contact Attorney
Pierski numerous times by telephone and left
messages with his secretary. Attorney
Pierski did not respond to C.L. or V.C., nor
did he return any of their phone calls.
¶8 Attorney Pierski took no action to
transfer the real property to the trust.
¶9 C.L. filed a grievance against
Attorney Pierski. The OLR contacted
Attorney Pierski to obtain a formal
response. Attorney Pierski failed to
respond to several requests from the OLR
before finally providing the requested
response on December 10, 2007.
|
|
¶10 On December 14, 2010, the OLR filed
a three-count complaint, alleging that: (1)
by failing to take any action to transfer
the real property to the family trust,
Attorney Pierski failed to act with
reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client, in violation of SCR
20:1.3; (2) by failing to respond to
inquiries from V.C. and C.L. beginning in
January 2007 and continuing through mid-July
of 2007, Attorney Pierski failed to promptly
comply with a client's reasonable requests
for information, in violation of former SCR
20:1.4(a) (effective through June 30, 2007)
and current SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) (effective July
1, 2007); and (3) by failing to provide his
initial response to the grievance within 20
days and by failing to timely respond to
OLR's requests for a supplemental response
until being personally served with a final
notice threatening the temporary suspension
of his license, Attorney Pierski failed to
cooperate with an OLR investigation,
contrary to SCRs 22.03(2) and (6), which are
enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h).
|
|
¶11 The parties filed a "Stipulation of
Facts and Admission of Violation" on June
20, 2011. By way of the stipulation,
Attorney Pierski admitted the primary
allegations of the complaint and also
admitted that the facts constitute
violations of the cited supreme court
rules. Attorney Pierski reserved the right
to present evidence and testimony regarding
the appropriate sanction.
¶12 The referee then heard and
considered the parties' arguments regarding
discipline. Attorney Pierski argued for a
second private reprimand. The OLR argued
that since the conduct in the 2003 private
reprimand case and the conduct in this case
are very similar, including failure to
cooperate with the OLR in each case, that
progressive discipline must be imposed in
this case and requested a public
reprimand. The referee filed his report
and recommendation on September 15, 2011.
No appeal has been filed.
|
|
¶13 The court will affirm the referee's
findings of fact unless they are clearly
erroneous. In re Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269
Wis.
2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747. The referee's
conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.
Id.
|
|
¶14 The referee articulated the factors
to be considered in imposing appropriate
discipline for professional misconduct,
which include: (1) the seriousness, nature
and extent of the misconduct; (2) the level
of discipline needed to protect the public,
the courts, and the legal system from
repetition of the attorney's misconduct; (3)
the need to impress upon the attorney the
seriousness of the misconduct; and (4) the
need to deter other attorneys from
committing similar misconduct. In re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Carroll,
2001 WI 130, ¶40, 248 Wis. 2d 662, 636
N.W.2d 718.
¶15 The referee noted he was troubled by
the fact that Attorney Pierski, with no good
explanation, has again failed to cooperate
with an OLR investigation. The referee
stated that the "only conclusion I can reach
is that [Attorney Pierski] simply ignored
his duties and responsibilities in relation
to the ancillary probate proceeding he had
agreed to undertake. He also, for the
second time, ignored his duties as a
Wisconsin attorney to promptly and timely
respond to a grievance as requested by
OLR." The referee found no evidence that
Attorney Pierski had any kind of improper
motive in failing to handle the ancillary
probate proceeding or failing to timely
respond to OLR's investigation, but
concluded that Attorney Pierski "simply did
not recognize the urgency and his
responsibility to do so in either case." On
balance the referee recommended, and we
agree, that a public reprimand is
appropriate in this case. The referee also
recommended, and we agree, that Attorney
Pierski should be responsible for all costs
of this disciplinary proceeding which total
$5,179.43 as of October 5, 2011.
¶16 IT IS ORDERED that Michael J.
Pierski is publicly reprimanded for his
professional misconduct.
¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60
days of the date of this order, Michael J.
Pierski pay to the Office of Lawyer
Regulation the costs of this proceeding. If
the costs are not paid within the time
specified and absent a showing to this court
of his inability to pay the costs within
that time, the license of Michael J. Pierski
to practice law in Wisconsin shall be
suspended until further order of the court.
|