|
Attorney Mario J. Tarara (Tarara) primarily
practices in Illinois. His license to
practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended
since October 31, 2006 for failure to pay
annual dues and assessments to the State Bar
of Wisconsin and since May 29, 2007 for
failure to comply with mandatory CLE
reporting requirements.
In or about August 2008, a woman hired
Tarara to represent her with regard to an
ongoing litigation matter in Rock County
Circuit Court related to the sale of a
business, eviction, and continued use of a
trade name. After Tarara became counsel of
record, the opposing party filed a second
and a third Amended Answer, Affirmative
Defenses and Counterclaim. Tarara failed to
file a response to the Third Amended Answer,
Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim or a
motion for an extension of time in which to
file a response. After settlement
negotiations between the parties failed to
resolve the litigation, opposing counsel
filed a motion for default with regard to
the Third Amended Answer, Affirmative
Defenses and Counterclaim, which the court
granted.
The court ordered a trial on damages to be
held in June 2009, but the trial was
cancelled due to ongoing settlement
negotiations. When negotiations failed to
result in a settlement, on March 31, 2010,
the court held a bench trial on damages,
ultimately entering a judgment against
Tarara’s client for financial damages and
enjoining her from further use of the
disputed trade name. The court ordered that
continued use of the trade name would result
in a $500 per day penalty.
Immediately following the court’s March 31,
2010 oral ruling, the client asked Tarara to
begin working on an appeal. Tarara advised
the client that he would “take a look at the
situation to see if anything could be done”
but ultimately determined that an appeal was
unlikely to be successful. He did not,
however, advise the client that he had
determined that an appeal would not be
successful and that he would take no further
action with regard to the judgment against
her. No appeal was filed from the default
judgment or subsequent written order
granting damages and injunctive relief.
Following the court’s March 31, 2010 oral
ruling, Tarara’s client failed to fully
comply with the court’s order with regard to
the use of the trade name. On April 5, 2010,
opposing counsel notified Tarara by email
that he had been informed that Tarara’s
client continued to use the trade name
inside the prohibited business location, and
that the defendant would seek damages at the
rate of $500 per day that the client’s
display of the name continued. Tarara failed
to discuss the email with his client. While
Tarara asserted that he believed that his
client understood the court’s oral ruling
and subsequent written order, she was
entitled to be informed that opposing
counsel had alleged that she was in
violation of the order and subject to
additional damages.
On September 8, 2010, opposing counsel moved
to amend the judgment to add damages for the
client’s continued use of the trade name
after March 31, 2010. Following an
evidentiary hearing, the court amended the
judgment, awarding the defendant $50,000 in
additional damages for the client’s
continued use of the trade name.
Between 2008 and 2010, Tarara included
language on his letterhead which
stated, “Licensed in Illinois and in
Wisconsin,” when his license to practice law
in Wisconsin had been suspended since
October 31, 2006.
|
|
By engaging in the practice of law in
Wisconsin at a time when his license to
practice law in Wisconsin was suspended,
Tarara violated SCR 10.03(6), which
states, “…[N]o person whose membership is so
suspended for nonpayment of dues or
assessments may practice law during the
period of the suspension,” and SCR 31.10(1),
which states, “A lawyer shall not engage in
the practice of law in Wisconsin while his
or her state bar membership is suspended
under this rule,” and SCR 22.26(2), which
states, “An attorney whose license to
practice law is suspended or revoked or who
is suspended from the practice of law may
not engage in this state in the practice of
law or in any law work activity customarily
done by law students, law clerks, or other
paralegal personnel, except that the
attorney may engage in law related work in
this state for a commercial employer itself
not engaged in the practice of law.”
Violations of SCR 10.03(6), SCR 21.10(1) and
SCR 22.26(2) are enforced under the Rules of
Professional Conduct via SCR 20:8.4(f),
which states, “It is professional misconduct
for a lawyer to…violate a statute, supreme
court rule, supreme court order or supreme
court decision regulating the conduct of
lawyers.”
|
|
By failing to file a response to the
defendant’s Third Amended Answer,
Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim,
Tarara violated SCR 20:1.3, which states, “A
lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence
and promptness in representing a client.”
|
|
By failing to advise his client of the
contents of opposing counsel’s April 5, 2010
email, Tarara violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3),
which states, “A lawyer shall…keep the
client reasonably informed about the status
of the matter…”
|
|
Having advised his client that he
would “take a look at the situation to see
if anything could be done” regarding a
possible appeal of the court’s March 31,
2010 decision, by: (i) failing to advise his
client that he had determined that an appeal
was unlikely to be successful, Tarara
violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(2), which states, “A
lawyer shall…reasonably consult with the
client about the means by which the client's
objectives are to be accomplished,” and SCR
20:1.4(b), which states, “A lawyer shall
explain a matter to the extent reasonably
necessary to permit the client to make
informed decisions regarding the
representation;” and (ii) failing to inform
his client that he would not file an appeal
and that he believed the representation was
concluded, Tarara violated SCR 20:1.16(d),
which states, “Upon termination of
representation, a lawyer shall take steps to
the extent reasonably practicable to protect
a client's interests, such as giving
reasonable notice to the client, allowing
time for employment of other counsel,
surrendering papers and property to which
the client is entitled and refunding any
advance payment of fee or expense that has
not been earned or incurred. The lawyer may
retain papers relating to the client to the
extent permitted by other law.”
|
|
By stating on his letterhead used between
2008 and 2010 that he was licensed in
Wisconsin when his license to practice law
in Wisconsin has been suspended since
October 31, 2006, Tarara violated SCR 20:7.1
(a), which states, “A lawyer shall not make
a false or misleading communication about
the lawyer or the lawyer's services. A
communication is false or misleading if it:
(a) contains a material misrepresentation of
fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to
make the statement considered as a whole not
materially misleading…” and SCR 20:7.5(a),
which states, “A lawyer shall not use a firm
name, letterhead or other professional
designation that violates SCR 20:7.1…”
Tarara has no prior discipline.
In accordance with SCR 22.09(3), Attorney
Mario J. Tarara is hereby publicly
reprimanded.
Dated this 7 day of January, 2015.
|