|
Leonard G. Adent, date of birth 9/25/1942,
State Bar number: 1011347, maintains a solo
private practice in Pewaukee, WI. This
reprimand is based upon two matters.
First Matter
Adent was convicted in Fond du Lac
County on February 10, 2011 of Operating
While Intoxicated, 2nd offense. The
conviction arose out of Adent’s arrest on
November 12, 2010 after a Wisconsin State
Patrol Officer responded to a motorist’s 911
call reporting a reckless driver seen
crossing lanes of traffic and swerving onto
the shoulder of the road on U.S. Highway
41. The motorist followed Adent to a nearby
hotel where the trooper arrested Adent after
a preliminary breath test indicated his
blood alcohol level was .175. Blood test
results placed his blood alcohol level
at .200. Adent underwent treatment for
alcohol dependence and was discharged from
the program on April 12, 2012 with a “very
good” prognosis. Adent did not report his
criminal conviction to OLR or to the clerk
of the supreme court.
|
|
Adent by his conduct in driving while
intoxicated, resulting in his conviction for
OWI, 2nd offense, violated SCR 20:8.4(b),
which provides that it is misconduct for a
lawyer to commit a criminal act that
reflects adversely on his fitness as a
lawyer. In addition, by failing to report
his criminal conviction to OLR and the clerk
of the supreme court within five days of its
entry, Adent violated SCR 21.15(5), which is
enforced via SCR 20:8.4(f).
Second Matter
Adent represented a man in a medical
malpractice claim. Adent filed suit on the
man’s behalf in July of 2007. On August
23, 2007, one of the defendants served the
plaintiff, via Adent, with his first set of
interrogatories and request for production
of documents. The plaintiff was required to
respond within 30 days, but Adent did not
comply. Defendant’s counsel made repeated
requests for the response over the ensuing
year. Adent did not provide plaintiff’s
response until September of 2008, nearly one
year after it was initially due.
On February 24, 2009, defendant’s counsel
served Adent with a second set of discovery
which included a request for the plaintiff
to admit that the defendant doctor had acted
reasonably and within the standard of care.
Adent did not thoroughly review the document
and failed to recognize that a response was
required. The defendant moved for summary
judgment in April of 2009 on the basis that
the plaintiff was deemed to have admitted
that the defendant doctor had acted
reasonably and within the standard of care,
precluding a negligence claim.
Thereafter, Adent responded to the motion
for summary judgment by filing a document
that included plaintiff’s responses to the
first set of discovery and a portion of a
medical opinion report authored by
plaintiff’s expert. At the initial hearing
on the summary judgment motion held in June
of 2009, the presiding judge withheld ruling
on the motion in order to provide Adent a
final opportunity to respond to the motion
for summary judgment. Adent told the court
that he had prepared a brief and affidavit
in response to the motion for summary
judgment, but neither the court nor the
opposing parties had received it. Adent was
assessed costs for the June hearing.
In August of 2009, the court held a second
hearing. In the interim, the defendants
moved for dismissal as Adent had not
complied with the order for payment of
costs. Adent made no response to the Motion
to Dismiss. The court construed Adent’s
response to the motion for summary judgment
as a motion to withdraw the plaintiff’s
admission that the defendant had met the
standard of care. The court denied Adent’s
motion and granted summary judgment, noting
that the case was “replete with delay.”
Adent appealed the court’s ruling. In
November of 2010, the Court of Appeals
issued its decision affirming the trial
court’s rulings. The Court of Appeals noted
that the appendix Adent filed with his brief
included a document that had never been
filed with the circuit court. In addition,
the Court of Appeals fined Adent $150.00,
finding that Adent’s certification that his
appendix met the requirement of WIS. STAT.
RULE 809.19(2)(a) was false in that Adent
failed to include all of the trial court
transcript necessary for the court’s review
of the decision.
During the course of the investigation of
this matter, OLR requested that Adent
produce his file relating to his
representation of the plaintiff. Despite
indicating in several responses that he
would produce the file or at least portions
of it for OLR’s review, Adent never did so
and never fully explained what had become of
the file.
|
|
By failing: (1) to sufficiently review the
Request for Admissions, which resulted in
his failure to recognize that a response was
crucial and ultimately led to the dismissal
of his client’s cause of action; (2) to
properly respond to the motion for summary
judgment and the motion for dismissal; and
(3) to file an appendix that met the
requirements of the appellate rules of
procedure, Adent failed to provide the legal
knowledge, skill, thoroughness and
preparation reasonably necessary for the
representation and thereby failed to provide
competent representation in violation of SCR
20:1.1.
|
|
By failing: (1) to sufficiently review the
Request for Admissions, which resulted in
his failure to recognize that a response was
crucial and ultimately led to the dismissal
of his client’s cause of action; (2) to
properly respond to the motion for summary
judgment and the motion for dismissal; and
(3) to file an appendix that met the
requirements of the appellate rules of
procedure, Adent failed to provide the legal
knowledge, skill, thoroughness and
preparation reasonably necessary for the
representation and thereby failed to provide
competent representation in violation of SCR
20:1.1.
|
|
By failing to timely respond to
interrogatories and to the motion for
summary judgment, by failing to comply in
all respects with the trial court’s order of
June 22, 2009, and by failing to respond to
the defendant’s motion to dismiss, Adent
failed to act with reasonable diligence and
promptness in representing his client and
thereby violated SCR 20:1.3.
|
|
By failing to comply with the Rules of
Appellate Procedure, Adent failed to obey an
obligation under the rules of a tribunal and
thereby violated SCR 20:3.4(c).
|
|
By failing to make a reasonably diligent
effort to comply with the defendant’s proper
discovery requests, Adent violated SCR 20:3.4
(d).
|
|
By failing to fully answer OLR’s repeated
inquiries regarding what had become of his
client file, Adent failed to cooperate fully
with OLR’s investigation of this matter and
thereby violated SCR 22.03(6), which is
enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h).
Adent has no prior discipline.
In accordance with SCR 22.09(3), Attorney
Leonard Adent is hereby publicly reprimanded.
Dated this 23rd day of December, 2012.
|