|
ATTORNEY disciplinary
proceeding. Attorney's license revoked.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review a
stipulation filed pursuant to Supreme Court
Rule (SCR) 22.12 by the Office of Lawyer
Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Erika Anita
Cannaday. In the stipulation, Attorney
Cannaday does not contest that she committed
76 acts of professional misconduct in some
16 client matters or that the revocation of
her license to practice law in Wisconsin is
appropriate discipline for her misconduct.
The parties further stipulate that Attorney
Cannaday should pay $1,306 in restitution to
H.M., $1,000 in restitution to the Wisconsin
Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection (Fund)
regarding K.O., $500 in restitution to the
Fund regarding L.C., and $1,606 in
restitution to the Fund regarding E.H. and
M.H.
¶2 After fully reviewing the matter, we
approve the stipulation and revoke Attorney
Cannaday's license to practice law in this
state. The professional misconduct
committed by Attorney Cannaday is extensive
and warrants her removal from the practice
of law. Because this matter is being
resolved without the appointment of a
referee, and because the OLR has not sought
costs, we do not impose the costs of this
proceeding on Attorney Cannaday.
|
|
¶3 Attorney Cannaday was admitted to
the State Bar of Wisconsin in 2005. She has
practiced in Oconomowoc and the surrounding
areas. On November 20, 2013, Attorney
Cannaday's Wisconsin law license was
suspended for her noncooperation with the
OLR in three of the client matters discussed
below. Since June 3, 2014, Attorney
Cannaday's Wisconsin law license has been
administratively suspended for failing to
comply with mandatory continuing legal
education requirements.
¶4 The complaint to which Attorney
Cannaday stipulated addresses 16 client
matters. It is not necessary to describe
the particular factual allegations of each
representation. A synopsis of the
information contained in the complaint will
provide a sufficient description of the
nature and scope of her professional
misconduct. Beginning in 2011 and
continuing into 2013, Attorney Cannaday
essentially abandoned a significant portion
of her practice. She undertook to represent
clients and accepted advanced fees in a
myriad of cases including divorces, personal
bankruptcies, child placement matters,
landlord tenant disputes, paternity actions,
termination of parental rights, and
grandparent visitation. Then, for months,
Attorney Cannaday failed to take meaningful
action on her clients' behalf and failed to
respond to her clients' calls, emails, and
letters seeking information about their
cases. She missed court hearings, failed to
file critical documents with the court,
failed to provide her clients with final
accountings, and failed to refund unearned
portions of her fees. Once the aggrieved
clients contacted the OLR, she then failed
to timely and substantively respond to
multiple requests from the OLR seeking
information about the various grievances.
On November 20, 2013, this court temporarily
suspended Attorney Cannaday's license for
noncooperation in several matters.
|
|
¶5 The stipulation before the court
provides that, contrary to SCR 20:1.3,
Attorney Cannaday failed to act with
reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client in the following
client matters: D.M. (Count 1), J.N. (Count
6), J.B. (Count 9), L.C. (Count 16), K.O.
(Count 27), E.L. (Count 34), L.B. (Count
40), N.L. (Count 43), K.S. (Count 46), H.K.
(Count 51), J.S. (Count 56), E.H. and M.H.
(Count 61), H.M. (Count 66), and S.D. and
G.D. (Count 71).
|
|
¶6 The stipulation provides that,
contrary to SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4),
Attorney Cannaday failed to keep the
following clients reasonably informed about
the status of their matter and failed to
promptly comply with reasonable requests by
the client for information: D.M. (Count 2),
J.N. (Count 7), J.B. (Count 10), L.C. (Count
17), T.W. (Count 23), K.O. (Count 28), E.L.
(Count 35), L.B. (Count 41), N.L. (Count
44), K.S. (Count 47), H.K. (Count 52), J.S.
(Count 57), E.H. and M.H. (Count 62), H.M.
(Count 67), and S.D. and G.D. (Count 72).
|
|
¶7 The stipulation provides that,
contrary to SCR 20:1.15(b)(4), Attorney
Cannaday failed to deposit advanced payments
of fees and costs into her trust account in
the matters of D.M. (Count 3), J.B. (Count
12), L.C. (Count 19), T.W. (Count 24), K.O.
(Count 32), E.L. (Count 37), K.S. (Count
48), and H.K. (Count 53).
|
|
¶8 The stipulation provides that,
contrary to SCR 20:1.15(d)(1), Attorney
Cannaday failed to deliver funds held in
trust which a client or third party was
entitled to receive in the K.O matter (Count
29).
|
|
¶9 The stipulation provides that,
contrary to SCR 20:1.5(a), Attorney Cannaday
charged an unreasonable fee, by accepting
advanced fee payments but not performing
further work on the clients' behalf, in the
matters of J.B. (Count 11), L.C. (Count 18),
E.L. (Count 36), J.S. (Count 58), E.H. and
M.H. (Count 63), and H.M. (Count 68).
|
|
¶10 The stipulation provides that,
contrary to SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) and (2),
Attorney Cannaday failed to communicate to
the client in writing the basis or rate of
her fees and expenses and the purpose and
effect of any retainer or advanced fee that
is paid to Attorney Cannaday in the T.W.
matter (Count 22).
|
|
¶11 The stipulation provides that,
contrary to SCR 20:1.16(d), Attorney
Cannaday failed to refund unearned fees and
failed, in some cases, to respond to
multiple written requests to relinquish a
client file during her representation of
D.M. (Count 4), J.B. (Count 13), L.C. (Count
20), T.W. (Count 25), K.O. (Count 31), E.L.
(Count 38), K.S. (Count 49), H.K. (Count
54), J.S. (Count 59), E.H. and M.H. (Count
64), and H.M. (Count 69).
|
|
¶12 The stipulation provides that,
contrary to SCR 20:3.4(c), Attorney Cannaday
knowingly and without justification
disobeyed a court's order during her work on
the J.B. matter (Count 14).
|
|
¶13 The stipulation provides that,
contrary to SCR 22.26(2) and SCR 20:8.4(a),
Attorney Cannaday violated the supreme court
rules by practicing law while suspended
during her work on a TPR matter (Counts 74
and 75).
|
|
¶14 The stipulation provides that,
contrary to SCR 22.26(2) and SCR 20:8.4(a),
Attorney Cannaday violated the supreme court
rules by practicing law while suspended
during her work on a TPR matter (Counts 74
and 75).
|
|
¶15 The stipulation provides that,
contrary to SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6), and
SCR 20:8.4(h), Attorney Cannaday failed to
provide relevant information to the OLR in a
timely fashion and failed to answer
questions fully or otherwise provide
information requested by the OLR in the
following matters: D.M. (Count 5), J.N.
(Count 8), J.B. (Count 15), L.C. (Count 21),
T.W. (Count 26), K.O. (Count 33), E.L.
(Count 39), L.B. (Count 42), N.L. (Count
45), K.S. (Count 50), H.K. (Count 55), J.S.
(Count 60), E.H. and M.H. (Count 65), H.M.
(Count 70), S.D. and G.D. (Count 73), and
the TPR matter (Count 76).
|
|
¶16 Attorney Cannaday does not contest
the above counts of misconduct. The
parties' stipulation recites that Attorney
Cannaday understands the allegations of the
complaint, that she enters the stipulation
freely, knowingly, and voluntarily, that she
understands that she had a right to contest
the matters and to consult with and be
represented by counsel, and that the
stipulation is not a result of plea-
bargaining.
¶17 The parties stipulated that
revocation is appropriate discipline.
¶18 Having considered this matter, we
approve the stipulation and adopt the
stipulated facts and legal conclusions of
professional misconduct. We agree that
revocation of Attorney Cannaday's license to
practice law in this state is appropriate
discipline. See In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Fisher, 2010 WI 45,
324 Wis. 2d 745, 785 N.W.2d 321 (revocation
for 55 counts of misconduct after attorney
abandoned law practice); In re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kelly,
2012 WI 55, 341 Wis. 2d 104, 814 N.W.2d 844
(revocation for 51 counts of misconduct for
attorney with no prior disciplinary
history); In re Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Abbott, 2005 WI 172, 286 Wis. 2d
616, 707 N.W.2d 851 (consensual revocation
for 20 allegations of misconduct).
|
|
¶19 We agree that Attorney Cannaday
should be ordered to pay restitution as
stipulated by the parties: $1,306 to H.M.,
$1,000 to the Fund regarding K.O., $500 to
the Fund regarding L.C., and $1,606 to the
Fund regarding E.H. and M.H. Attorney
Cannaday does not dispute that she owes
restitution to these clients.
¶20 Finally, because Attorney Cannaday
entered into a comprehensive stipulation
under SCR 22.12, thereby obviating the need
for the appointment of a referee and a full
disciplinary proceeding, we do not impose
costs in this matter.
¶21 IT IS ORDERED that the license of
Erika Anita Cannaday to practice law in
Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of
this order.
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60
days of the date of this order, Erika Anita
Cannaday shall pay $1,306 in restitution to
H.M., $1,000 in restitution to the Wisconsin
Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection
regarding K.O., $500 in restitution to the
Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client
Protection regarding L.C., and $1,606 in
restitution to the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund
for Client Protection regarding E.H. and
M.H.
¶23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Erika
Anita Cannaday shall comply with the
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the
duties of a person whose license to practice
law in Wisconsin has been revoked.
¶24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that
compliance with all conditions of this order
is required for reinstatement. See SCR
22.28(2).
|