|
Attorney Timothy T. Blank (Blank) is a
Wisconsin-licensed attorney, admitted to
practice on January 7, 1997. On November
12, 2009, Blank’s license was temporarily
suspended by the Wisconsin Supreme Court for
failing to cooperate with multiple OLR
investigations. On April 6, 2016, after
Blank demonstrated an intention to cooperate
with those investigations, Blank’s non-
cooperation suspension was lifted. OLR’s
investigations were subsequently resumed and
it was established that Blank engaged in
misconduct as follows:
First Matter
A client and judge both filed
grievances against Attorney Timothy T. Blank
regarding his handling of the client’s
matter.
On January 26, 2009, the client hired Blank
to represent her in a three-count criminal
case that included a charge of homicide by
intoxicated use of a vehicle. That same
day, Blank appeared with the client at her
initial appearance.
Between January 26, 2009 and March 18, 2009,
Blank and the client had sporadic
communication. After meeting with him on
March 18, 2009, the client was unable to
contact Blank. Blank’s office phone was
disconnected and the voicemail on his cell
phone was full. The client went to Blank’s
office but he was not there. She left a
note for him. Blank later explained he had
stopped going to the office because of an
illness.
Prior to her scheduled April 10, 2009
preliminary hearing, the client called the
prosecutor and judge handling her case and
explained her inability to contact Blank.
The judge indicated he would try to contact
Blank.
On April 10, 2009, the client appeared for
the preliminary hearing. Blank did not
appear. The prosecutor told the court that
she had e-mailed Blank but had received no
response. The judge was also unable to
reach Blank. The court rescheduled the
preliminary hearing so that the client could
seek new counsel.
With regard to the judge’s grievance, on May
21, 2009, OLR sent a letter to Blank
informing him of OLR’s investigation of this
matter and requesting that he submit a
written response within 20 days, as required
by SCR 22.03(2). Blank did not respond and
a second letter was sent on June 29, 2009.
Again Blank failed to respond. On July 28,
2009, Blank was personally served with a
third request that he submit a written
response. Blank still failed to respond to
the May 21, 2009 letter.
With regard to the client’s grievance, on
July 27, 2009, OLR sent Blank a letter
requesting information with regard to the
grievance. Blank was personally served with
a copy of that letter. Blank failed to
respond to the July 27, 2009 letter.
Blank’s failure to respond to OLR’s letters
of May 21, 2009 and July 27, 2009 led to the
temporary suspension of his license to
practice law for failing to cooperate with
OLR’s investigations.
|
|
By failing to provide any services to his
client after their meeting on March 18, 2009,
including but not limited to failing to attend
her preliminary hearing, Blank violated SCR
20:1.3, which states, “A lawyer shall act with
reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client.”
|
|
By failing to communicate with his client
after their meeting on March 18, 2009,
including by failing to respond to phone
calls, failing to respond to a note left for
him, and failing to notify the client that he
would not be attending her preliminary
hearing, Blank violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3),
which states, “A lawyer shall keep the client
reasonably informed about the status of the
matter,” and SCR 20:1.4(a)(4), which states,
“A lawyer shall promptly comply with
reasonable requests by the client for
information.”
|
|
By failing to respond to OLR’s letter of May
21, 2009, Blank violated SCR 22.03(2), which
states in relevant part, “Upon commencing an
investigation, the director shall notify the
respondent of the matter being investigated…
The respondent shall fully and fairly
disclose all facts and circumstances
pertaining to the alleged misconduct within
20 days after being served by ordinary mail
a request for a written response,” and SCR
22.03(6), which states, “In the course of
the investigation, the respondent's wilful
failure to provide relevant information, to
answer questions fully, or to furnish
documents and the respondent's
misrepresentation in a disclosure are
misconduct, regardless of the merits of the
matters asserted in the grievance.”
|
|
By failing to respond to OLR’s July 27, 2009
request for information, Blank violated SCR
22.03(6).
Violations of SCR 22.03(2) and SCR 22.03(6)
are enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h), which states
in relevant part, “It is professional
misconduct for a lawyer to…fail to cooperate
in the investigation of a grievance filed
with the office of lawyer regulation as
required by SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b),
SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6), or SCR
22.04(1).”
Second Matter
In October of 2008, a man consulted with
Blank regarding an eviction action that had
been filed against him. An attorney-client
relationship arose, though it was understood
that the man would appear on his own behalf
at court proceedings.
The man represented himself at a trial to
the court later that month. Following the
trial, a judgment of eviction was entered
against him. The man filed an appeal.
Prior to doing so, he again consulted Blank.
The man’s appeal was ultimately dismissed.
In late December of 2009, after the
dismissal of the appeal, the man’s former
landlord filed an amended summons and
complaint seeking an award for past-due
rent. After receiving the amended summons
and complaint, the man met with Blank to
discuss the matter. The man attempted to
reach Blank again prior to a scheduled
hearing before a court commissioner but was
unable to do so. Following that initial
hearing, at which the commissioner entered a
judgment in favor of the landlord, the man
requested a court trial. The man attempted
to contact Blank prior to the court trial
but was unable to do so.
The trial was held in April of 2009. The
man represented himself. A judgment of
almost $2,500 was entered against him. That
award was $700 greater than the judgment
awarded by the court commissioner. During
the past-due portion of the proceedings, the
man attempted to raise a defense that had
previously been ruled upon in the eviction
portion of the proceedings. He was unaware
that he could not do so.
After the trial, the man again attempted to
contact Blank, this time to discuss a
possible appeal of the past-due rent
judgment. Again, the man was unable to
contact Blank. The man had attempted to
reach Blank both by phone and by visiting
his office, where the man left notes taped
to the office door.
The man had also previously given Blank $700
to consult on a potential bankruptcy.
Because the man could no longer reach Blank,
he could not consult with him about that
matter. After the man filed his grievance,
Blank returned the $700 to him.
It was eventually revealed that Blank had
closed his law practice after suffering from
an illness. The man did not terminate his
attorney-client relationship with Blank but
assumed Blank had ended the relationship
when he abandoned the case.
In meeting with the man regarding the past-
due rent proceedings, Blank had not advised
the man that he would not be able to revive
during the past-due rent portion of the
proceedings an argument initially made at
the eviction stage and already rejected by
the judge. Blank also failed to tell the
man that the judge in the court trial was
not bound by the amount awarded by the court
commissioner. The man felt unprepared for
both the hearing before the commissioner and
the court trial.
On July 27, 2009, OLR sent Blank a letter
requesting information with regard to the
man’s grievance. Blank was personally
served with a copy of that letter. Blank
failed to respond to the July 27, 2009
letter, leading to the temporary suspension
of his license to practice law for failing
to cooperate with OLR’s investigation of the
grievance.
|
|
By failing to take steps to ensure that the
man was adequately prepared for court
proceedings about which the man had consulted
him, Blank violated SCR 20:1.3, which states,
“A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence
and promptness in representing a client.”
|
|
By closing his law practice, effectively
terminating his representation of the man,
without giving notice to the man and without
promptly returning the $700 advanced in
connection with a potential bankruptcy, Blank
violated 20:1.16(d), which states in relevant
part, “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… and refunding any advance payment
of fee or expense that has not been earned or
incurred.”
|
|
By failing to respond to OLR’s July 27, 2009
request for information, leading to the
temporary suspension of his license to
practice law, Blank violated SCR 22.03(6),
which states, “In the course of the
investigation, the respondent's wilful
failure to provide relevant information, to
answer questions fully, or to furnish
documents and the respondent's
misrepresentation in a disclosure are
misconduct, regardless of the merits of the
matters asserted in the grievance.”
Violations of SCR 22.03(6) are enforced via
SCR 20:8.4(h), which states in relevant
part, “It is professional misconduct for a
lawyer to…fail to cooperate in the
investigation of a grievance filed with the
office of lawyer regulation as required by
SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b), SCR
22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6), or SCR 22.04(1).”
Blank has no prior discipline.
In accordance with SCR 22.09(3), Attorney
Timothy T. Blank is hereby publicly
reprimanded.
Dated this 22nd day of September, 2016.
|