|
Michael J. Anderson is a Wisconsin-licensed
attorney, admitted to practice in 2000.
On July 8, 2014, a woman hired Anderson to
represent her in a previously-filed federal
civil rights suit against members of the
Milwaukee Police Department. The woman paid
Anderson advanced fees of $1,700 on July 8,
2014, and $400 on July 22, 2014 (totaling
$2,100).
On October 14, 2014, adverse counsel served
Anderson with Defendants’ First Set of
Interrogatories and First Set of Requests
for Production of Documents.
On November 13, 2014, Anderson called
adverse counsel to request an extension
until November 28, 2014, to respond to the
defendants’ discovery requests. Adverse
counsel granted Anderson’s extension
request.
Anderson met with the client in her home on
November 25, 2014. During this meeting,
Anderson stated that his depression “was
keeping him from putting 100% into [the]
case.” Despite her numerous subsequent
calls to Anderson, the client did not
receive any communication from him after the
November 25, 2014 meeting.
Anderson states that from late 2014 well
into 2015 he was suffering from a severe
bout of depression that affected his ability
to fulfill his duty to his client.
Anderson failed to provide the discovery
responses by the extended November 28, 2014
deadline.
Adverse counsel sent a letter dated February
16, 2015 to Anderson requesting “full and
complete responses signed by your client by
Friday, February 20, 2015.” Anderson failed
to respond to adverse counsel’s letter, and
he failed to provide responses by Friday,
February 20, 2015.
Adverse counsel filed Defendants’ Civil L.R.
7(h) Expedited Non-Dispositive Motion to
Compel Discovery on March 5, 2015,
requesting “that the Court enter an order
compelling the Plaintiff to respond to the
Defendants’ outstanding discovery requests
or face dismissal of this action with
prejudice pursuant to Rule 37(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Anderson
did not provide the client with a copy of
this motion nor did he inform her of it.
At a hearing held March 30, 2015, the court
granted the motion to compel discovery. The
court minutes state:
Counsel for the plaintiff told the
court
that while he had suffered some problems in
communicating with his client, it was his
fault that there had been no responses to
the discovery demands. When the court asked
why he’d not responded, counsel stated that
he did not have an excuse. When the court
asked whether the plaintiff wished to
continue with prosecution of the action,
counsel responded that that question was up
in the air. The court told counsel that the
plaintiff needed to decide whether she
wished to continue this suit, and she needed
to make that decision by April 17, 2015 or
suffer dismissal of the case for lack of
prosecution.
In its order issued April 6, 2015, the court
ordered that if the plaintiff did not
respond to the defendants’ discovery demands
by April 17, 2015, counsel for the defendant
could file an affidavit informing the court
of that fact. It advised that upon receipt
of such an affidavit, the court would
dismiss the action for lack of prosecution.
Anderson did not provide the client with a
copy of this order nor did he inform her of
it.
Anderson failed to provide the responses by
April 17, 2015. Adverse counsel filed a
declaration on April 22, 2015, stating the
defendants had not been served with any
responses to their written discovery
requests, and requesting the court dismiss
the action with prejudice based on the
plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.
On April 24, 2015, the court dismissed the
suit with prejudice. Anderson, without the
client’s knowledge or consent, entered into
a stipulation regarding taxable costs on May
8, 2015. Under the stipulation, the
plaintiff would not move to re-open or re-
file the action or file a notice of appeal,
and the defendants would not seek the costs
and disbursements incurred.
On February 2, 2016, the client sent an
email to Anderson, inquiring into the status
of her case. Anderson replied approximately
30 minutes later informing the client that
her case had been dismissed based on her
refusal to comply with the defendants’
discovery requests. In the email, Anderson
stated:
Your case was dismissed because when
we met
that November you refused to give me answers
to many of adverse counsel’s written
interrogatories, such as access to your
social media accounts etc. They wanted to
seek costs and attorney fees from you
because if (sic) that, but I got them to
drop that. Instead, the court dismissed the
case based on your refusal to comply with
their discovery requests. There was no valid
reason for not giving them the info they
sought, but you didn’t want to, and I had no
valid objection to their requests.
Anderson then agreed to refund the unearned
portion of the $2,100 advanced fee, and to
further discuss the matter.
Anderson met with the client in her home on
February 11, 2016, at which time he provided
her client file, including an itemization of
work performed. Anderson states he did not
bill the client for any work performed after
July 2014. About three weeks after the
February 11, 2016 meeting, Anderson refunded
a portion of the advanced fee.
|
|
By failing to advance the client’s interests
in the matter of her civil rights lawsuit,
Anderson violated SCR 20:1.3, which states, “A
lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and
promptness in representing a client.”
|
|
By failing to timely inform the client of case
developments, including adverse counsel’s
motion to compel discovery, the court’s
granting of that motion, the court’s dismissal
of the lawsuit, and his stipulation regarding
taxable costs, Anderson violated SCR 20:1.4(a)
(3), which states, “A lawyer shall…keep the
client reasonably informed about the status of
the matter.”
|
|
By stipulating as to terms attached to the
adverse parties’ waiver of costs without
having informed the client of that issue,
Anderson violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(1), which
states, “A lawyer shall…promptly inform the
client of any decision or circumstance with
respect to which the client’s informed
consent, as defined in SCR 20:1.0(f), is
required by these rules.”
|
|
By continuing to represent the client when
his depression kept him from fulfilling his
duties to his client, Anderson violated SCR
20:1.16(a)(2), which states, “Except as
stated in par. (c), a lawyer shall not
represent a client or, where representation
has commenced, shall withdraw from the
representation of a client if…the lawyer’s
physical or mental condition materially
impairs the lawyer’s ability to represent
the client.”
By failing to ever comply with the
defendants’ discovery requests, Anderson
violated SCR 20:3.4(d), which states, “A
lawyer shall not…in pretrial procedure, make
a frivolous discovery request or fail to
make reasonably diligent effort to comply
with a legally proper discovery request by
an adverse party.”
Anderson had no prior discipline.
In accordance with SCR 22.09(3), Attorney
Anderson is hereby publicly reprimanded.
Dated this 2nd day of December, 2017.
|