|
The Respondent, Attorney Jeremiah Meyer-
O’Day (“Meyer-O’Day”), age 41, was admitted
to the practice of law in Wisconsin on
October 21, 2013, and practices in
Lancaster, Wisconsin. This reprimand is
based on Meyer-O’Day’s conduct in two
separate matters.
First Matter
Meyer-O’Day is employed by the Wisconsin
State Public Defender (“SPD”). Meyer-O’Day
was required to pay his fiscal 2017 State
Bar of Wisconsin (“State Bar”) dues and
Supreme Court assessments and sign his trust
account certification on the dues statement
by July 1, 2016, but he did not do so.
On June 29, 2016, the State Bar
received Meyer-O’Day’s Hardship Waiver
Application for a waiver of State Bar dues
and Supreme Court assessments, dated June
27, 2016.
The Hardship Waiver Application
stated, “You will be contacted in writing
regarding your waiver request.
Applications
must be postmarked before July 1. You will
be contacted in writing by August 1.”
(Emphasis in original.).
In a July 25, 2016 letter to Meyer-
O’Day, the State Bar Executive Director
stated:
This letter is to inform you that your
request for a hardship waiver has been
received.
We regret to inform you that after
reviewing
the application with the President of the
Bar, it was decided that your request will
not be granted.
Your payment will need to be received
in our
office before October 31, 2016 to
remain a
member in good standing. If payment and
trust account signature are not received
before October 31 your membership will be
suspended and fees will be applied to your
account. A late fee will hit your account
if payment is not postmarked by August 30,
2016.
A second dues statement will be mailed
to
you the first week of August.
(Emphasis in original.).
In early August 2016, a second dues
statement was mailed to Meyer-O’Day.
However, Meyer-O’Day still did not pay his
fiscal 2017 State Bar dues and Supreme Court
assessments and did not sign his trust
account certification.
On September 26, 2016, the State Bar
sent Meyer-O’Day a third dues statement,
along with a letter from a State Bar
Membership Manager. In the September 26,
2016 letter sent via certified mail to
Meyer-O’Day, the State Bar Membership
Manager stated:
We are sending this final
assessment/dues
statement via certified mail to tell you
that there are two things you need to do to
avoid suspension.
1. Pay your fiscal 2017 State
Bar dues
and Supreme Court Board assessments, which
were due July 1, 2016.
2. Sign your trust account
certification on the front of the dues
statement.
Accordingly, we are sending you this
letter
alerting you that you will be suspended
automatically if your payment and signature
are not received at the State Bar office
by
5:00 p.m. on Monday, October 31, 2016.
(Emphasis in original.).
In the September 26, 2016 letter sent via
certified mail to Meyer-O’Day, the State Bar
Membership Manager further stated: “Members
suspended are required to pay the full
amount owed plus a late payment fee of
$50.00 and a reinstatement fee of $20.00 to
regain their license. No suspended member
may practice law during the period of
suspension.”
The State Bar provided OLR with a
copy of the September 26, 2016 letter to
Meyer-O’Day and the post office tracking
number and history showing that the
September 26, 2016 letter and dues statement
were delivered at 9:20 a.m. on October 3,
2016. The September 26, 2016 letter and
dues statement were sent to Meyer-O’Day at
his SPD Office.
On October 31, 2016, Meyer-O’Day’s
license to practice law was administratively
suspended due to his failure to pay State
Bar dues and Supreme Court assessments and
his failure to certify his compliance with
the trust account record-keeping
requirements.
On November 3, 2016, according to
Meyer-O’Day, he mailed his dues and
assessments, the $50.00 late fee, and his
trust account certification to the State
Bar.
In an April 27, 2017 letter to OLR,
Meyer-O’Day stated, “My office received the
notice of suspension on November 3, 2016,
but I did not open and read it until the
afternoon of November 4, 2016.” Meyer-O’Day
further stated, “I then called the
membership coordinator’s office, where I was
informed that although they had in fact
received my trust account certification and
money order for dues and the $50 late fee,
there was now a $20 reinstatement fee which
was not covered by the money order, and as
such, the money order was already in the
mail being returned to me.”
Thereafter, Meyer-O’Day paid his
dues and assessments, the late fee, and the
reinstatement fee to the State Bar with his
debit card. On November 8, 2016, Meyer-
O’Day was reinstated from his administrative
license suspension. Meyer-O’Day appeared on
behalf of SPD clients in 26 criminal cases
during the period of time when his license
to practice law was suspended.
In the April 27, 2017 letter to OLR,
Meyer-O’Day stated, “I did not at any point
receive written notification that my
hardship waiver application had been denied.
After I received the second past-due notice
in August or September, which failed to
mention anything about the status of my
hardship wavier application. I contacted
the State Bar’s membership coordinator’s
office and was finally told orally that my
hardship waiver application had been
denied.” Contrary to Meyer-O’Day’s
statement, the State Bar provided OLR with a
copy of the State Bar Executive Director’s
July 25, 2016 letter to Meyer-O’Day, which
stated that Meyer-O’Day’s hardship waiver
application had been denied.
In the April 27, 2017 letter to OLR,
Meyer-O’Day stated, “None of the past-due
notices I received from the State Bar
notified me that my license would be
suspended if my dues along with any
applicable late fees were not paid by
October 31, 2016.” Contrary to Meyer-
O’Day’s statement, the State Bar provided
OLR with a copy of the State Bar Membership
Manager’s September 26, 2016 letter sent via
certified mail to Meyer-O’Day, which stated
that Meyer-O’Day would be suspended
automatically if his dues and assessments
payment and trust account certification were
not received at the State Bar office by 5:00
p.m. on Monday, October 31, 2016.
In an April 16, 2018 email to OLR,
Meyer-O’Day stated that he recalled
receiving a certified letter from the State
Bar in the early part of October of 2016.
However, Meyer-O’Day further stated, “I
recall seeing that it was regarding my past
due bar dues, and I further recall foolishly
tossing it in the trash without fully
reading it.” In previous correspondence
with OLR Meyer-O’Day did not state that he
failed to fully read the letters sent to him
by the State Bar.
With respect to OLR’s request to
Meyer-O’Day that he provide OLR with a copy
of all correspondence, notices, and
documents that he received from the State
Bar regarding his October 31, 2016
suspension, in the April 27, 2017 letter to
OLR, Meyer-O’Day stated, “I do not have all
of the notices, but I have attached what I
was able to locate in my office.” Meyer-
O’Day further stated, “Please note that I
have been unable to locate copies of my
hardship waiver application as well as of
most of the notices sent to me by the State
Bar of Wisconsin regarding my dues for
2016.” Ultimately, OLR obtained the
documents directly from the State Bar.
In or around January 2017, Meyer-
O’Day’s co-worker, also a SPD attorney,
learned from a SPD secretary that Meyer-
O’Day’s permanent notary public commission
was revoked. Thereafter, the co-worker
discovered that an administrative suspension
can result in the revocation of a notary
license, so he contacted the State Bar to
find out if Meyer-O’Day had been suspended.
In a February 20, 2017 email to the
co-worker, a State Bar Member Records &
Information Specialist stated that Meyer-
O’Day had been suspended for nonpayment of
dues on October 31, 2016, and was returned
to good standing on November 8, 2016.
Shortly after receiving the February
20, 2017 email, the co-worker had a
conversation with Meyer-O’Day regarding
Meyer-O’Day’s administrative suspension.
The co-worker secretly video recorded most
of the conversation with his cell phone.
In the video-recorded conversation,
with respect to the time period when Meyer-
O’Day was suspended, the co-worker stated,
“So you didn’t appear at all that week?”
Meyer-O’Day replied, “I rescheduled
everything.” The co-worker then stated,
“Did you get paid?” Meyer-O’Day replied, “I
took time off for most of those days.”
Meyer-O’Day’s statements to the co-worker
were untrue.
In the April 27, 2017 letter to OLR,
Meyer-O’Day stated, “I realized that these
were in fact misrepresentations shortly
after the conversation with Attorney [the
co-worker].” Meyer-O’Day further stated, “I
regret deeply both the misrepresentations
and my failure to correct them prior to
formal investigations being instituted.”
In a March 22, 2017 letter to Meyer-
O’Day, a SPD Deputy Secretary stated:
This is official notification of a 5
day
suspension without pay for violation of the
following State of Wisconsin work rule:
Work Rule #20: Failure to comply with
or
violating any rule, regulation or order of a
professional licensing agency when the
license or certification is related to the
new employee’s position.
Specifically, you represented
Wisconsin
State Public Defender clients while your law
license was suspended.”
In the March 22, 2017 letter to
Meyer-O’Day, the SPD Deputy Secretary
further stated, “There is a great potential
for harm to the public trust and confidence
in the SPD if it allows unlicensed attorneys
to practice law, regardless of the reasons
for the loss of license, therefore, based
on
the egregiousness of your misconduct a
higher level of discipline is warranted.”
(Emphasis in original.).
|
|
By appearing on behalf of numerous SPD
clients during a period of time when his
license was suspended, Meyer-O’Day violated
the following Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules:
SCR 10.03(6), which states, “Penalty
for
nonpayment of dues. If the annual dues or
assessments of any member remain unpaid 120
days after the payment is due, the
membership of the member may be suspended in
the manner provided in the bylaws; and no
person whose membership is so suspended for
nonpayment of dues or assessments may
practice law during the period of the
suspension.”; and
SCR 20:1.15(i)(4), which states,
“Suspension
for non-compliance. The failure of a state
bar member to file the certificate is
grounds for automatic suspension of the
member’s membership in the state bar in the
same manner provided in SCR 10.03(6) for
nonpayment of dues. The filing of a false
certificate is unprofessional conduct and is
grounds for disciplinary action.”
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.
SCR 10.03(6), SCR 20:1.15(i)(4), and SCR
22.26(2) are enforced under the Rules of
Professional Conduct for Attorneys via SCR
20:8.4(f), which states, “It is professional
misconduct for a lawyer to:…(f) violate a
statute, supreme court rule, supreme court
order or supreme court decision regulating
the conduct of lawyers.”
|
|
By misrepresenting to his co-worker that he
rescheduled his cases and took time off for
most of the days during the period of time he
was suspended, Meyer-O’Day violated SCR
20:8.4(c), which states, “It is professional
misconduct for a lawyer to:…(c) engage in
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
misrepresentation.”
|
|
By misrepresenting to OLR that he did not
receive written notification from the State
Bar that his hardship waiver application was
denied, and that the State Bar did not
notify him that his license would be
suspended if his dues and assessments were
not paid by October 31, 2016, Meyer-O’Day
violated SCR 22.03(6), which states, “In the
course of the investigation, the
respondent’s willful 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.” SCR 22.03(6) is enforced under
the Rules of Professional Conduct for
Attorneys through SCR 20:8.4(h), which
states, “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 22.03(6)…”
Second Matter
On October 23, 2014, a client hired Meyer-
O’Day’s then-law firm, to have Meyer-O’Day
represent her with respect to filing a civil
action relating to allegations of battery,
false imprisonment, and trespass. The
client paid Meyer-O’Day’s then-law firm a
$400 advanced fee. Meyer-O’Day resigned
from the law firm in September 2015, and
began working for the Wisconsin State Public
Defender’s Office (“SPD”) on October 5,
2015.
Meyer-O’Day did not file a civil
action on the client’s behalf. Meyer-O’Day
told the client that he thought her claim
was of dubious merit, but that he would
conduct an investigation to see what else
could be found to support her claim. He
worked on that investigation on and off for
the next eleven months, until he was hired
by the SPD.
With respect to the client’s case
file, in a letter to OLR, Meyer-O’Day
stated, “I do not at this time have the case
file, nor do I have any documents relating
to [the client’s] case file.” Meyer-O’Day
stated that he searched for the client’s
case file, but has been unable to locate it.
Meyer-O’Day further stated, “I am also
unsure as to whether I mailed [the client]
her entire file along with the draft
complaint and closing letter.”
With respect to the client’s
allegation that the statute of limitations
has run for filing a civil action in her
case, Meyer-O’Day stated that he cannot be
sure without having the file, but he assumes
that the statute of limitations has run
based on the passage of time.
In his response to the client’s
grievance, Meyer-O’Day stated, “I had been
offered a job with the Office of the State
Public Defender, to start on October 5,
2015. As a result, I redrafted the draft
complaint I was at that point prepared to
file to be a pro se complaint to provide to
[the client] to either use on her own or to
present to a successor attorney.” In
essence, prior to the termination of the
representation, Meyer-O’Day had already
drafted a complaint that he was prepared to
file on behalf of the client, but he did not
inform her of this fact.
In his response to the client’s
grievance, Meyer-O’Day stated:
I then [September 2015] mailed the
draft pro
se complaint along with a closing letter
stating why I was terminating the
representation, that a draft complaint was
enclosed for her use, and that while we do
not normally refund any portion of a base
fee after work has begun on the
representation, I would consider a partial
refund if she requested one. I did not
receive a response to this letter, but this
is somewhat unsurprising, as I also did not
notice until mid-October that I had not been
getting forwarded mail from the old [Meyer-
O’Day’s then-law firm’s] Madison
address.
On or about September 30, 2015,
Meyer-O’Day’s prior law firm’s Madison
office was vacant. Meyer-O’Day further
stated, “As such, I cannot confirm that the
closing letter and draft complaint did not
bounce back or otherwise fail in its
delivery to [the client]. I do not recall
whether I kept a copy of the closing letter
or the draft pro se complaint with the file,
and in any event, as I cannot locate said
file, it would avail me nothing had I done
so until and unless I can locate it.”
In mid-October 2015, even though he
knew he had not been receiving forwarded
mail originally directed to his prior law
firm’s old Madison address, Meyer-O’Day took
no action to confirm that the client
actually received his purported closing
letter terminating the representation, along
with the draft pro se complaint.
The client called Meyer-O’Day on
multiple occasions requesting information
regarding the status of the case, but he did
not respond to her calls. Furthermore, the
client went to Meyer-O’Day’s office at his
prior law firm and was informed that her
messages had been forwarded to Meyer-O’Day.
Meyer-O’Day still did not respond. Meyer-
O’Day did not keep the client reasonably
informed about the status of the case. The
client’s last attempt to contact Meyer-O’Day
was in or around July 2015, but Meyer-O’Day
did not respond.
|
|
By failing to keep the client reasonably
informed regarding the status of the case, and
by failing to respond to the client’s
telephone calls requesting information, Meyer-
O’Day violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4), which
state, “A lawyer shall…(3) keep the client
reasonably informed about the status of the
matter; (4) promptly comply with reasonable
requests by the client for information…”
|
|
Upon termination of the representation, by
failing to provide reasonable notice to the
client of the termination, and by otherwise
failing to take reasonable steps to protect
the client’s interests, Meyer-O’Day 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.”
Meyer-O’Day has no prior discipline.
In accordance with SCR 22.09(3), Attorney
Respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded.
Dated this 22nd day of August, 2018.
|