|
Attorney T. Gregory Amann of Ellsworth
engaged in misconduct in two matters
investigated by the Office of Lawyer
Regulation (OLR).
MATTER ONE
The Respondent T. Gregory Amann became
licensed to practice law in Wisconsin on
September 18, 1984. Effective 4:30 p.m.
central time on May 30, 2017, the Board of
Bar Examiners suspended Amann’s license to
practice law in Wisconsin pursuant to SCR
31.10(1) due to his noncompliance with the
2015-2016 Wisconsin mandatory continuing
legal education reporting requirements. On
June 9, 2017, Amann filed a petition for
reinstatement and the Board of Bar Examiners
reinstated his license to practice law the
same date. Amann practiced law in Wisconsin
during his period of suspension.
On October 27, 2016, the Board of Bar
Examiners sent Amann a memorandum notifying
him that he was required to file his CLE
report for the 2015-2016 reporting period no
later than February 1, 2017. Amann received
the memorandum and knew that he was required
to file his CLE report no later than
February 1, 2017, but did not comply with
the CLE reporting requirements.
On March 31, 2017, the Board of Bar
Examiners sent Amann a Notice of
Noncompliance by certified mail. Amann
received notices in his mailbox of the
certified correspondence, but he did not
claim the letter. Following several attempts
between April 4 and 19, 2017 to deliver the
letter to Amann, the notice was returned to
the Board of Bar Examiners marked unclaimed.
Between October 27, 2016 and June 1, 2017,
Amann took no action to file his CLE report,
contact the Board of Bar Examiners regarding
CLE reporting requirements, or verify when
he might be suspended for failure to comply
with CLE reporting requirements.
On May 31, 2017, the Board of Bar Examiners
sent Amann a notice of suspension by first
class mail, notifying him that his license
to practice law had become suspended at 4:30
p.m. central time on May 30, 2017 due to his
noncompliance with the CLE reporting
requirements. Amann asserted that he did not
receive the notice of suspension until he
visited the post office on the evening of
June 1 or 2, 2017. On May 31, 2017 and June
1, 2017, Amann did not verify the status of
his license, even though he was aware that
he had not complied with CLE reporting
requirements and knew he was late in
complying.
Amann practiced law in Wisconsin on May 31,
2017 and June 1, 2017. On May 31, 2017,
Amann filed a de novo hearing request with
the Pierce County Circuit Court on behalf of
a client, and appeared on behalf of clients
in Polk County Circuit Court, Pierce County
Circuit Court, and St. Croix County Circuit
Court. On June 1, 2017, Amann met with a
client and spoke with a district attorney
related to a Dunn County Circuit Court case.
On June 1, 2017, Amann received an email
from the State Public Defender’s Office
regarding the suspension. Amann asserted
that early in the afternoon on June 1, 2017,
he attempted to log in and report his CLE
credits, but he was not able to do so
online. Amann contacted the Board of Bar
Examiners, and then began preparing the
paperwork and contacting CLE providers,
intending to drive his report to Madison the
next morning, in hopes that his license
would be reinstated the same day. As he
prepared the paperwork, Amann came to
believe that he did not have enough CLE
credit hours for the reporting period, and
began notifying courts and opposing counsel
of the need to reschedule his next day’s
court appearances. While he learned after
his reinstatement that he had obtained
sufficient hours prior to his suspension,
between June 1 and 9, 2017, Amann believed
that he did not have sufficient CLE hours
and made arrangements to take additional
seminars.
Prior to his suspension, Amann knew that he
had not timely complied with CLE reporting
requirements but thought he would not be
suspended “so quickly.” Amann should have
been aware of the likely timing of his
impending suspension, however, because he
was suspended on June 4, 2013 under very
similar circumstances for failure to comply
with CLE reporting requirements for the
2011-2012 reporting period. Similar to the
circumstances surrounding Amann’s practice
of law on May 31 and June 1, 2017, in 2013
Amann practiced law during the period in
which his license was suspended for non-
compliance with CLE reporting requirements.
Like in 2016, the Board of Bar Examiners had
sent Amann a memorandum regarding his CLE
reporting requirements dated October 17,
2012 and a Notice of Noncompliance dated
April 5, 2013. Like the March 31, 2017
Notice of Noncompliance, the April 5, 2013
Notice, sent by certified mail, was returned
to the Board of Bar Examiners marked
unclaimed by Amann, following several
attempts to deliver it to Amann. Given the
similarities between the circumstances of
his suspension and practice while suspended
in 2013 and 2017, Amann should have been
aware in 2017 of the timing and consequences
for failing to comply with mandatory CLE
reporting requirements.
|
|
By practicing law in Wisconsin at a time
when his license to practice law in
Wisconsin was suspended, Amann violated SCR
31.10(1), which states, “A lawyer shall not
engage in the practice of law in Wisconsin
while his or her state bar membership is
suspended under this rule” and 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.”
Violations of SCR 31.10(1) and SCR 22.26(2)
are enforced under the Rules of Professional
Conduct via SCR 20:8.4(f), which states, “It
is professional misconduct for a lawyer to…
violate a statute, supreme court rule,
supreme court order or supreme court
decision regulating the conduct of lawyers.”
MATTER TWO
On or about December 1, 2014, the Respondent
T. Gregory Amann was appointed to represent
a man in four Sawyer County Circuit Court
criminal cases. In the first case, the
client was charged with one count of
burglary and ten counts of theft of moveable
property. In the second case, the client was
charged with one count of felony escape-
criminal arrest, and two counts of felony
bail jumping. In the third case, the client
was charged with one count of felony bail
jumping. In the fourth case, the client was
charged with OWI 4th within 5 years,
operating with PAC 4th in 5 years,
misdemeanor possession of THC, resisting or
obstructing an officer, and felony bail
jumping.
The client had been convicted in June, 2013,
of one felony count of violating WIS. STAT.
§943.30(1) Threats to Injure/Accuse of
Crime, for which he was sentenced to three
years confinement and three years extended
supervision (consecutive to a jail term
imposed in another matter), stayed, and
three years probation, with conditions that
included absolute sobriety.
On April 21, 2014, the client was arrested
for the conduct leading to the charges at
issue in the fourth case, resulting in the
revocation of his probation stemming from
his 2013 conviction. On April 22, 2014, in
the fourth case, the court imposed a $15,000
cash bond, which the client was unable to
post, causing him to remain in custody. The
$15,000 cash bond was imposed only in the
fourth case.
On January 21, 2016, pursuant to a plea
agreement: in the first case, the client
pled no contest to one count of burglary,
and the ten counts of theft of moveable
property were dismissed and read in; in the
second case, pled no contest to felony bail
jumping, and the remaining counts were
dismissed but read in; in the third case,
the single count of felony bail jumping was
dismissed but read in; and in the fourth
case, the client pled no contest to OWI 4th
within 5 years, and the remaining counts
were dismissed but read in. Pursuant to the
plea agreement, the client’s sentence in the
four cases was to run concurrent to the
prison sentence he was serving for his 2013
conviction.
The client accepted the plea deal based on
Amann’s advice that, while the client would
not receive any sentence credit for the
first case, the sentence would begin to run
on the date the cash bond was imposed, April
22, 2014, rather than the date of
sentencing. Amann gave the client that
advice because Amann mistakenly believed
that the $15,000 cash bond applied to all
four cases, and not to the fourth case
alone.
On April 27, 2016, the client was sentenced
in the three cases that resulted in
convictions. In the first case, the court
sentenced the client to five years initial
confinement followed by five years of
extended supervision, concurrent with the
sentence imposed in the 2013 conviction. The
parties stipulated that the client was not
entitled to any sentence credit in the first
case. The client still believed, based on
Amann’s inaccurate advice, that his sentence
in the first case would begin to run on
April 22, 2014, not April 27, 2016.
In September, 2016, the client learned
during a review of his placement that his
sentence in the first case ran from April
27, 2016, the date of sentencing, rather
than April 22, 2014. Between September,
2016, and February 12, 2017, the client
attempted to contact Amann numerous times by
telephone and mail, and by email through St.
Germaine’s mother, to request Amann’s
assistance in resolving what the client
perceived to be an error in sentence credits
or how his sentence was calculated. Amann
sent the man a letter dated November 28,
2016, in which Amann wrote, “I looked
through your files again and I believe that
I understand the problem. I will look at the
Court files the next time that I am in
Hayward and will obtain copies of the Court
documents including the plea forms. I
probably will also need to order transcripts
of both those hearings. I will follow up
with you once I do that.” Amann did not
order any transcripts. Amann also failed to
review the four cases sufficiently to
realize that he had provided the client
inaccurate information based on Amann’s
mistaken belief that the bond applied to all
four cases. Between November 28, 2016 and
January 24, 2017, Amann did not take any
action to advance the client’s interests.
On January 28, 2017, Amann sent the client a
letter in which he stated, “I looked at the
Court files...For some reason the
attachments to the plea waiver and
questionnaire were not in the file…I will
try to determine what happened to those –
they may be important to address the
sentencing credit issue. At this point…I am
looking at filing a motion to have [the
court] deal with the sentence and credit
issues. If that is unsuccessful, the case
will be transferred to the public defender
appellate office in Madison and a staff or
appointed lawyer will take the case from
there. If my performance or advice was
insufficient they will be able to assert an
ineffective assistance of counsel claim and
the problem will be addressed that way.”
On February 12, 2017, the client sent a
grievance to OLR regarding Amann’s failure
to take action to correct what the client
still believed was an improper credit or
computation of his sentence. On February 21,
2017, OLR Intake Staff contacted Amann by
telephone to discuss the client’s grievance.
During that call, Amann asserted to OLR that
Amann was “still working on” the client’s
case, and was aware of the client’s
concerns. On February 22, 2017, Amann sent
the client a letter promising to meet with
the client by the middle of March, 2017, and
asserting that he was attempting to meet
with the prosecutor to see if he would “work
with” Amann and the client to “resolve the
problem in a shorter time frame than Court
proceedings will require.” Amann still had
not reviewed the four cases sufficiently to
determine that he had provided the client
inaccurate advice regarding when the
sentence would begin to run.
On or about April 3, 2017, Amann realized
that he had been mistaken in his belief that
the bond applied to all four cases. In an
email to OLR, Amann asserted that he
intended to “have this addressed by
appellate counsel.” Amann asserted, “I
suspect that the appellate intake office
will require me to obtain an extension to
file the intent to seek postconviction
relief.”
Between April 3 and June 23, 2017, Amann did
not file a motion to extend time for the
client to file a notice of intent to seek
postconviction relief, take any other action
to advance the client’s interests, or
contact the State Public Defender’s office
to discuss the client’s case or seek their
advice or guidance.
By letter dated May 31, 2017, OLR notified
Amann of the investigation of the client’s
grievance, and requested certain information
from Amann, including that Amann identify
what actions he had taken on behalf of the
client since April 3, 2017. Amann’s response
was due by June 23, 2017. By letter dated
June 23, 2017, Amann asserted again that he
had determined that the “best option” for
the client was for Amann to “file the motion
with the Court of Appeals to extend the time
in which to file notice of intent to seek
postconviction relief.” Amann promised to
file the motion by June 26, 2017.
On June 28, 2017, Amann filed the client’s
motion to extend the time in which to file
notice of intent to seek postconviction
relief, which the Court of Appeals granted.
The client was assigned successor counsel to
pursue his appeal.
|
|
SCR 20:1.3 states, “A lawyer shall act with
reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client.” Amann violated SCR
20:1.3 by: failing to take steps to timely
ascertain that the client’s cash bond
applied to only one of the criminal cases to
which the client was subject, preventing
Amann from providing the client with correct
information regarding his potential sentence
and the commencement of any such sentence;
failing to order sentencing hearing
transcripts, notwithstanding his statement
to the client that he would do so; and,
failing between April 3, 2017 and June 28,
2017 to file a motion to extend time to file
a notice of intent to pursue postconviction
relief.
|
|
In 2014, Amann received a private reprimand
for violating SCR 20:8.4(b) by engaging in
conduct leading to his conviction for
misdemeanor OWI(2nd) in violation of Wis.
Stat. §346.63(1)(a), and violating SCR
31.10(1) and SCR 22.26(2), enforced via SCR
20:8.4(f), for practicing law at a time when
his license to practice law in Wisconsin was
suspended.
In accordance with SCR 22.09(3), Attorney T.
Gregory Amann is hereby publicly reprimanded.
Dated this 13th day of December, 2018.
|