|
ATTORNEY disciplinary
proceeding. Attorney's license
suspended.
¶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 Patrick A.
Callahan. In the stipulation, Attorney
Callahan admits the misconduct alleged by
the OLR and agrees to a 60-day suspension of
his Wisconsin law license.
¶2 We adopt the stipulated facts and
conclusions of law. We agree that Attorney
Callahan's misconduct warrants the
suspension of his Wisconsin law license for
a period of 60 days. The OLR advises that
this court should not impose either
restitution or the costs of this proceeding
upon Attorney Callahan, and we accept that
recommendation.
¶3 Attorney Callahan was admitted to
the practice of law in Wisconsin in 1998.
Although Attorney Callahan has not been the
subject of prior disciplinary proceedings,
his law license is currently suspended due
to his failure to pay mandatory bar dues,
failure to file a trust account
certification, and failure to comply with
continuing legal education requirements. In
addition, Attorney Callahan's law license
has been suspended since November 26, 2013,
for noncooperation with the OLR's
investigation into the matter that is the
subject of the complaint and stipulation now
before this court.
¶4 The complaint and stipulation
concern five misconduct counts and involve
one client, C.R. According to the complaint
and the stipulation, C.R. met with Attorney
Callahan in April 2011 to discuss her recent
and allegedly wrongful termination from her
job. In July 2012, Attorney Callahan filed
on C.R.'s behalf a discrimination complaint
against C.R.'s former employer with the
Equal Rights Division (ERD) of the Wisconsin
Department of Workforce Development (DWD).
This discrimination complaint was time-
barred, however, because the statutorily
imposed deadline to file the complaint
expired several months earlier, in February
2012. The DWD-ERD dismissed the complaint
as untimely filed.
¶5 Attorney Callahan appealed the
dismissal. Shortly thereafter, Attorney
Callahan made an offer to C.R.'s former
employer to settle C.R.'s case for $10,000——
even though he had no authority from C.R. to
settle the case on those terms. The
attorney for C.R.'s former employer accepted
the offer. Attorney Callahan then
represented to the ERD administrative law
judge that the parties had settled the case
and that settlement paperwork would be
forthcoming. After 19 months passed, the
ERD administrative law judge affirmed the
decision to dismiss C.R.'s discrimination
complaint as untimely filed. The
administrative law judge noted that,
although C.R. appeared blameless for the
untimely filing, Attorney Callahan had
presented no valid excuse for the delay.
¶6 In July 2012, on the same day that
Attorney Callahan filed the untimely
discrimination complaint against C.R.'s
former employer with the DWD-ERD, Attorney
Callahan also filed a civil suit against
C.R.'s former employer. In February 2013,
about six weeks before the discovery cutoff
date set by the circuit court, Attorney
Callahan sent a letter to the circuit court
in which he admitted that he had: (1)
failed to perform necessary discovery
activities to prepare the case adequately;
(2) failed to communicate with C.R. about
the status of her claim; (3) failed to
inform C.R. of the scheduling of her
deposition; (4) advised opposing counsel
that C.R. would accept $10,000 to settle the
case even though he did not have C.R.'s
authority to do so; and (5) failed to timely
file C.R.'s discrimination complaint with
the DWD-ERD and to report this fact to C.R.
Attorney Callahan also mailed a copy of this
letter to the OLR.
¶7 At Attorney Callahan's request, the
circuit court permitted Attorney Callahan to
withdraw from the representation of C.R.
The circuit court then dismissed C.R.'s case
without prejudice.
¶8 In April and May 2013, the OLR sent
letters to Attorney Callahan seeking
information related to his representation of
C.R. Attorney Callahan did not respond to
these letters, which ultimately led to this
court's November 26, 2013 order temporarily
suspending Attorney Callahan's law license
for failing to cooperate with the OLR's
investigation.
¶9 In September 2015, the OLR filed a
complaint against Attorney Callahan which
alleged the following five counts of
misconduct:
|
|
• Count 1: By failing to perform the
necessary work to advance C.R.'s circuit
court suit against C.R.'s former employer,
and by failing to properly advance C.R.'s
DWD-ERD discrimination claim, Attorney
Callahan violated SCR 20:1.3.
|
|
• Count 2: By advancing a settlement
offer in C.R.'s case that C.R. had not
authorized, Attorney Callahan violated SCR
20:1.2(a).
|
|
• Count 3: By representing to
opposing counsel that C.R. would settle her
claims for $10,000 when he knew that he had
no authority from C.R. to do so, Attorney
Callahan violated SCR 20:8.4(c).
|
|
• Count 4: By failing to keep C.R.
apprised of the status of her discrimination
claim with the DWD-ERD, and by failing to
keep C.R. apprised of the status of her
circuit court case, Attorney Callahan
violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4).
• Count 5: By failing to provide
timely written responses to the OLR's
investigative letters regarding C.R.'s
grievance, Attorney Callahan violated SCR
22.03(2) and (6).
¶10 In late December 2015, the OLR and
Attorney Callahan executed the stipulation
now before the court. In addition to
stipulating to the facts as set forth above,
the parties stipulated to discipline in the
form of a 60-day suspension of Attorney
Callahan's Wisconsin law license.
|
|
¶11 The stipulation provides that it is
not the result of a plea bargain. Attorney
Callahan also verifies that he fully
understands the misconduct allegations, the
ramifications if this court should impose
the stipulated level of discipline, his
right to contest the matter, and his right
to consult with counsel. He further
verifies that his entry into the stipulation
was made knowingly and voluntarily, and that
it represents his admission of all
misconduct and his assent to the level and
type of discipline sought by the OLR
director.
¶12 The OLR has filed a memorandum in
support of the stipulation. The memorandum
discusses attorney disciplinary cases that
resulted in 60- or 90-day suspensions for
misconduct that generally involved the
failure to perform timely work for a client,
the failure to properly communicate with a
client, and the failure to cooperate with an
OLR investigation into misconduct.
¶13 The OLR's memorandum states that the
case most similar to the facts at issue here
is In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Fitzgerald, 2006 WI 58, 290 Wis. 2d 713,
714 N.W.2d 925. In Fitzgerald, an
attorney received a 90-day suspension for,
among other things, failing to respond to an
insurance company's inquiries concerning her
client's case; falsely telling her client
that the insurance company had made a
settlement offer when the insurance company
had not done so; fabricating a release
document from the insurance company; and
using her own money as the settlement funds
allegedly offered by the insurance company.
The OLR states that, like Attorney
Fitzgerald, Attorney Callahan failed to
perform the necessary work to advance his
client's case and then later tried to cover
it up by advancing a ruse that the case had
settled. However, on the basis of Attorney
Callahan's self-reporting of his misconduct
to the circuit court and to the OLR, the OLR
recommends that Attorney Callahan receive a
60-day suspension, rather than the 90-day
suspension imposed in Fitzgerald. The
OLR also considers as a mitigating factor
the fact that Attorney Callahan has not been
the subject of prior disciplinary
proceedings.
¶14 We adopt the stipulation and the
stipulated facts and conclusions of law, and
impose the stipulated discipline. We agree
that the seriousness of Attorney Callahan's
misconduct warrants the suspension of his
Wisconsin law license for 60 days. The OLR
does not seek restitution, so we impose
none. In light of the stipulation, the OLR
does not seek costs, so we also do not
impose costs.
¶15 IT IS ORDERED that the license of
Patrick A. Callahan to practice law in
Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60
days, effective the date of this order.
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Patrick
A. Callahan shall comply with the provisions
of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a
person whose license to practice law in
Wisconsin has been suspended.
¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that
compliance with all conditions of this order
is required for reinstatement. See SCR
22.28(2).
¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the
November 26, 2013 temporary suspension of
Patrick A. Callahan's license to practice
law in Wisconsin, due to his willful failure
to cooperate with the OLR's grievance
investigation in this matter, is lifted.
¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the
administrative suspension of Patrick A.
Callahan's license to practice law in
Wisconsin, due to his failure to pay
mandatory bar dues, failure to file a trust
account certification, and failure to comply
with continuing legal education
requirements, will remain in effect until
each reason for the administrative
suspension has been rectified, pursuant to
SCR 22.28(1).
|