|
The Court entered the following order on
this date:
Attorney Bill Ginsberg has appealed a
referee's report concluding that Attorney
Ginsberg failed to represent his client,
A.P., in a reasonably diligent manner in
violation of SCR 20:1.3 and recommending
this court impose a private reprimand on him
together with the costs of this proceeding.
We review the referee’s conclusions of law
de novo. We conclude that the facts of this
case do not support a conclusion that
Attorney Ginsberg’s conduct violated SCR
20:1.3. We therefore dismiss the
complaint. No costs will be imposed.
Attorney Ginsberg was admitted to practice
law in Wisconsin in 1982. He was retained
to represent A.P., a commercial truck driver
who received a speeding ticket in La Crosse
County for driving 20-24 miles per hour over
the posted speed limit. During settlement
negotiations, the district attorney orally
offered to amend the citation to a charge of
speeding 16-19 miles per hour over the
posted speed limit. In response, Attorney
Ginsberg sent the district attorney, via
facsimile, a proposed stipulation to a
charge of 14 miles per hour over the speed
limit.
The district attorney signed the proposed
stipulation and forwarded it to the judge
who, in turn, accepted the stipulation and
entered judgment against A.P. for operating
a motor vehicle 14 miles per hour over the
posted speed limit. The judgment required
A.P. to pay a civil forfeiture. However,
the district attorney did not tell Attorney
Ginsberg she had signed the stipulation, and
she did not send him a signed copy of the
stipulation. The La Crosse County clerk of
circuit court then failed to send a signed
copy of the stipulation or a notice of entry
of judgment to either Attorney Ginsberg or
A.P. Accordingly, A.P. was unaware that he
was required to pay a civil forfeiture and,
on December 5, 2006, A.P. was advised that
his commercial license had been suspended
for failure to pay that forfeiture. He paid
the forfeiture with his credit card.
Attorney Ginsberg paid the reinstatement fee
for A.P.’s driver’s license on December 11,
2006. It is undisputed that A.P. lost
income the week his license was suspended.
|
|
On October 10, 2007, the Office of Lawyer
Regulation (OLR) filed a complaint against
Attorney Ginsberg relating to his
representation of A.P. The complaint
alleged that he violated SCR 20:1.3, which
requires a lawyer to act “with reasonable
diligence and promptness in representing a
client,” and former SCR 20:1.4(a), which
required that a lawyer “shall keep a client
reasonably informed about the status of a
matter and promptly comply with reasonable
requests for information.” Following the
execution of a stipulation regarding certain
facts and an evidentiary hearing, the
referee issued a report and recommendation
concluding that Attorney Ginsberg violated
SCR 20:1.3 but that he did not violate
former SCR 20:1.4(a). The referee reasoned
that “[n]either [the district attorney’s]
negligence, nor that of the clerk of court,
provides an excuse for Ginsberg’s lack of
diligence in this case. The consequences of
his failure to follow up on his unilateral
offer created the situation that could have
been avoided by the exercise of caution and
care that one would expect from a reasonably
prudent and competent lawyer.”
|
|
Attorney Ginsberg disputes the referee’s
conclusion that he violated SCR 20:1.3.
Attorney Ginsberg asserts that that he acted
with reasonable diligence and promptness in
this matter. He explains that typically if
a district attorney rejects a proposed
stipulation he would receive notice of a
trial date or, alternatively, the file might
remain dormant. He provided evidence,
including the expert testimony of Attorney
Gerald Mowris, that permitting some delay in
resolving a traffic case is usually in the
client’s best interest. Moreover, the
record supports his assertion that his
failure to receive either notice that the
proposed stipulation had been accepted and
executed or notice of entry of judgment was
exceedingly unusual. We acknowledge the
OLR’s point that Attorney Ginsberg could
have made “one phone call inquiring as to
the status of his proposed stipulation” or
he could have checked the Wisconsin Circuit
Court Access Program available on the
Internet. Ideally, Attorney Ginsberg would
have checked the status of his proposed
stipulation. However, given this unusual
circumstance in which notice of entry of
judgment was not provided to either Attorney
Ginsberg or his client, we decline to hold
that Attorney Ginsberg’s conduct in this
case violated his ethical obligation to act
with reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client. We conclude that the
OLR has failed to establish by clear and
substantial evidence that Attorney Ginsberg
violated SCR 20:1.3.
IT IS ORDERED that the OLR’s complaint is
dismissed. No costs will be imposed.
|