|
The Respondent, Attorney James G.
Moldenhauer (“Moldenhauer”), age 62, was
admitted to the practice of law in Wisconsin
on December 23, 1982, and practices in Eau
Claire, Wisconsin.
On or about November 6, 2009, a
client hired Moldenhauer to represent her in
a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. On November 20,
2009, Moldenhauer filed the client’s
Voluntary Petition for a Chapter 7
bankruptcy.
In a March 30, 2010 Discharge of Debtor
Order, the bankruptcy judge granted a
discharge to the client. At the time of the
filing of her Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the
client had judgments against her in three
cases. The three judgments against the
client were discharged in the Chapter 7
bankruptcy.
Subsequent to the March 30, 2010 Discharge
of Debtor Order, the client paid Moldenhauer
a total fee of $115 (in addition to the fee
paid for the bankruptcy) to file a
satisfaction of judgment in each of the
three cases.
In a January 2018 telephone conversation,
nearly eight years after the Chapter 7
discharge, the client notified Moldenhauer
that a satisfaction of judgment had not been
filed in the three cases. Moldenhauer
apologized to the client and told her that
he would file the satisfactions of judgment
and send her copies.
Over the next several months, Moldenhauer
did not respond to the client’s telephone
calls requesting information and did not
keep her informed regarding any progress he
had made toward filing a satisfaction of
judgment in each of the three cases.
Ultimately, in July 2018, Moldenhauer filed
the satisfaction of judgment in each of the
three cases and sent a letter to the client
informing her of the filings and providing
her with a copy of the documents.
|
|
By failing to file the satisfaction of
judgment in a timely manner in the three
cases, Moldenhauer violated SCR 20:1.3, which
states, “A lawyer shall act with reasonable
diligence and promptness in representing a
client.”
|
|
After the client notified him in January 2018
that the satisfactions of judgment had not
been filed in 2010, by failing to keep the
client reasonably informed regarding any
progress he had made toward filing the
satisfactions of judgment, and by failing to
respond to the client’s telephone calls
requesting information, Moldenhauer 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…”
|
|
Moldenhauer’s disciplinary history includes a
private reprimand in 1996, a public reprimand
in 2006, a public reprimand in 2008, a public
reprimand in 2012, and a 60-day suspension in
2016.
In accordance with SCR 22.09(3), Attorney
Respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded.
Dated this 23rd day of February, 2019.
|