A couple hired Attorney Todd W. Bennett of Portage to pursue litigation against the seller of the couple’s home. Months after the couple’s purchase of the home, a driveway and sidewalk on the property had begun to disintegrate. Bennett filed a lawsuit, alleging that the seller had used improper concrete and had improperly installed it and demanded judgment of $10,000 plus costs and disbursements. The defense filed an answer, and both parties filed motions for summary judgment.

The court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the lawsuit on grounds that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Bennett and the clients disagree on whether he informed them of the dismissal. However, after a discussion with one of the clients, Bennett filed a new lawsuit against the seller and raised three claims relating to the seller having made misrepresentations to the buyers.

Counsel for the defendant informed Bennett of his opinion that if Bennett proceeded, the plaintiffs faced the possibility of having the suit deemed frivolous, exposing them to substantial costs and attorney’s fees. The defendant’s counsel also told Bennett that the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the economic loss doctrine. Bennett, however, told his clients that adverse counsel’s position lacked merit. The defendant’s counsel filed an answer and raised numerous affirmative defenses, including failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, failure to join all necessary parties, and the economic loss doctrine. The defense later filed an amended answer and asserted that the lawsuit was frivolous.- - The court scheduled a status conference. Bennett wrote to his clients and informed them of the status conference, which was the last communication they received from him. Bennett attended the status conference.

The defendant’s counsel subsequently moved for summary judgment and also sent the court and Bennett a proposed scheduling order relating to the motion. The court issued a scheduling order that included a deadline for Bennett to file a response brief. Bennett did not file a response brief or contest the motion for summary judgment, nor did he inform his clients of the motion for summary judgment or of the scheduling order. The defendant’s counsel wrote to the court, requesting that the court issue a ruling on the defendant’s summary judgment motion and enclosing a proposed bill of costs.

The court issued a judgment in favor of the seller for attorney fees, costs and disbursements in the amount of $2,296.00. Bennett’s clients learned of the case dismissal and the judgment imposed against them by reviewing online court records on the day after the judgment was imposed.

The clients filed a grievance against Bennett, and the grievance was referred for formal investigation. OLR wrote to Bennett and asked him to submit a written response, and in particular, to respond to six questions. Bennett submitted a written response to the grievance, but he did not answer all of the questions raised in OLR’s letter. OLR wrote to Bennett and asked him to provide additional information, including an explanation as to why he filed a second lawsuit against the same defendant after the court had previously issued a summary judgment decision against his client in the first matter. OLR also asked Bennett to provide phone records evidencing that he had called his clients after the first lawsuit was dismissed, as he had asserted. Bennett failed to respond to those questions, although he responded to other questions raised by OLR.