|
Attorney Eugene Loftin of Racine engaged in
misconduct in two matters investigated by
the Office of Lawyer Regulation (“OLR”).
FIRST MATTER
Effective July 14, 2015, Loftin became
appointed defense counsel for a client in a
Racine County criminal case. Loftin
represented the client from July 14, 2015 to
May 10, 2016. During the representation,
Loftin appeared in court with the client at
several status conferences. On October 6,
2015, the court scheduled a final pre-trial
conference for May 3, 2016, and a jury trial
for May 10, 2016. At the time her trial was
scheduled, the client was incarcerated in
connection with a separate matter. The
client sought prompt resolution of the case
in which Loftin represented her so as to
avoid the possibility of re-incarceration
shortly after a brief period out of custody
in the other matter.
Loftin failed to reasonably communicate with
his client and respond to her letters
throughout the representation.
Approximately one week after a July 14, 2015
status conference, the client wrote to
Loftin wishing to speak with him prior to
her next court date on October 6, 2015;
however, Loftin did not respond and did not
speak with his client again prior to the
October 6, 2015 status conference.
Subsequent to that status conference, the
client wrote several more letters to Loftin
requesting status updates, but Loftin did
not respond. The client’s brother also made
several attempts to speak with Loftin on the
client’s behalf, but Loftin again did not
respond.
OLR sent Loftin two notices of the
investigation of the client’s grievance, the
second of which was personally served on
Loftin by the Racine County Sheriff’s
Office. Loftin did not provide OLR with the
required response to the grievance.
Pursuant to SCR 22.03(4), OLR then filed a
Notice of Motion and Motion Requesting
Order to Show Cause with the Wisconsin
Supreme Court due to Loftin’s willful
failure to cooperate with OLR’s
investigation of the client’s grievance and
with the investigation of the matter
described below in Matter 2. On December
12, 2017, following Loftin’s failure to
respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause,
the Court temporarily suspended Loftin’s law
license due to his willful failure to
cooperate with OLR. To date, the non-
cooperation suspension remains in place.
|
|
By failing to respond to the client’s multiple
requests for status updates regarding her
case, Loftin violated 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 the client’s
grievance, Loftin violated SCR 22.03(2),
which states, “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 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.” Violations of SCR 22.03(2) and
22.03(6) are enforced via 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(2), SCR 22.03(6)….”
SECOND MATTER
On August 24, 2016, Loftin appeared in court
with his client at a hearing on the
defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. The court
heard arguments and denied the motion. On
October 13, 2016, Loftin appeared at a
scheduling conference, and requested a
twelve-person jury trial. The court set
deadlines for designation of witnesses,
filing of dispositive motions, and
discovery. The court scheduled a three-day
jury trial to begin August 7, 2017. On
October 31, 2016, defendants moved for
reconsideration of the prior motion to
dismiss and moved to dismiss for Failure to
Prosecute in the Name of the Real Party in
Interest. A motion hearing was scheduled
for December 20, 2016. Loftin appeared at
that hearing with his client, but he had
failed to file a brief in advance of the
hearing pursuant to the court’s scheduling
order. The court issued a new briefing
schedule to allow Loftin additional time to
file a brief, and adjourned the motion
hearing to February 10, 2017. Loftin was to
submit a brief by January 13, 2017, but
failed to do so. Loftin failed to appear at
the February 10, 2017 motion hearing, as did
his client. The court granted the
defendant’s motion for reconsideration and
motion to dismiss with prejudice. The court
also granted the defendant’s motion for
costs.
Loftin consistently communicated with his
client via text message until approximately
two days before the February 10, 2017
hearing, at which point Loftin stopped
responding to the client’s text messages
requesting case status updates. The
client’s text message status inquires that
began February 8, 2017 went unanswered. It
was not until February 23, 2017, by checking
Wisconsin Circuit Court Access entries, that
the client learned of the February 10, 2017
dismissal of his case. The client then
resumed texting Loftin for case status
updates. Loftin did not respond until on or
around March 2, 2017, at which time Loftin
sent a text message to his client
acknowledging that he had missed the court
date. Lofting stated, “I am sorry. I will
file a motion to withdraw. You will then
file a motion to reopen. I do not mean to
avoid you . . . I feel bad about what
happened and it is unpleasant to own up to
it but I am not dodging you. I will ‘do the
right thing’ including but not limited to
withdrawing as counsel.” On March 6, 2017,
the client texted Loftin asking when Loftin
would file to reopen his case, stating,
“From what I understand from casual
conversation you need to do it and we have
30 days from when it was dismissed.” Loftin
responded via text, “Tomorrow everything
will be filed.” Loftin took no action to
attempt to reopen his client’s case. By
letter dated March 2, 2017, the client wrote
directly to the court asking that his case
be reviewed and reopened. The court
construed the letter as a Motion for
Reconsideration, and then denied the motion
on March 8, 2017 on grounds that no new
facts had been presented. The client sent
several text messages to Loftin from March
9, 2017 to March 18, 2017 asking if Loftin
had filed a motion to reopen the case, but
Loftin did not respond. While it appears
that the client believed Loftin would file a
Motion for Reconsideration, the client had
written to the court on March 2, 2017, the
same day that Loftin texted his client that
he would withdraw as counsel and instructing
the client to file a motion to reopen.
The client requested a copy of his case file
from Loftin, but Loftin provided no case
materials to the client, instead stating to
the client via email that he had no
documents to provide, due to having filed
everything electronically, meaning that the
client would have to obtain copies of his
case materials from the circuit court.
Loftin has not refunded any portion of the
funds advanced to him by the client. On
January 5, 2018, the client filed a claim in
the amount of $2346.11 with the Wisconsin
Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection. The
amount sought represents the $2,000 advanced
fee plus the $346.11 costs judgment that the
client personally satisfied.
Loftin responded to the client’s grievance
without addressing the questions posed to
him by OLR. OLR then sent multiple notices
to Loftin directing him to address the
questions posed by OLR. The final notice
was personally served on Loftin by the
Racine County Sheriff’s Office. Loftin
still did not respond. Pursuant to SCR
22.03(4), OLR then filed a Notice of Motion
and Motion Requesting Order to Show Cause
with the Wisconsin Supreme Court due to
Loftin’s willful failure to cooperate with
OLR’s investigation of the client’s
grievance and with the investigation of the
matter described above in Matter 1. On
December 12, 2017, following Loftin’s
failure to respond to the Court’s Order to
Show Cause, the Court temporarily suspended
Loftin’s law license. To date, the non-
cooperation suspension remains in place.
|
|
By failing to file a brief by the January 13,
2017 deadline in connection with the hearing
on the motion to dismiss, and by failing to
appear at the February 10, 2017 motion
hearing, Loftin violated SCR 20:1.3, which
states, “A lawyer shall act with reasonable
diligence and promptness in representing a
client.”
|
|
By failing to respond to certain of his
client’s case status inquiries, and by failing
to inform the client of the dismissal of his
case, Loftin violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and
(4). SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) states, “A lawyer shall
keep the client reasonably informed about the
status of the matter.” SCR 20:1.4(a)(4)
states, “A lawyer shall promptly comply with
reasonable requests by the client for
information.
|
|
By failing to provide his client a written
communication defining the terms and scope
of the representation, and the purpose and
effect of the $2,000 advanced fee paid by
the client, Loftin violated SCR 20:1.5(b)(1)
and (2). SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) states, “The scope
of the representation and the basis or rate
of the fee and expenses for which the client
will be responsible shall be communicated to
the client in writing, before or within a
reasonable time after commencing the
representation . . . .” SCR 20:1.5(b)(2)
states, “If the total cost of the
representation to the client, including
attorney’s fees, is more than $1,000, the
purpose and effect of any retainer or
advance fee that is paid to the lawyer shall
be communicated in writing.”
|
|
By failing to place the client’s $2,000
advanced fee in a trust account until earned,
Loftin violated former SCR 20:1.15(b)(4), in
effect prior to July 1, 2016, which stated,
“Except as provided in par. (4m), unearned
fees and advanced payments of fees shall be
held in trust until earned by the lawyer, and
withdrawn pursuant to sub. (g).”
|
|
Having failed to prosecute his client’s case,
rendering at least a portion of the advanced
fee unearned, and by failing to refund any
unearned fees to the client, Loftin 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 . . . 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.”
|
|
By failing to respond to OLR’s investigative
inquiries, Loftin violated SCR 22.03(2),
which states, “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 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.” Violations of SCR 22.03(2) and
22.03(6) are enforced via 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(2), SCR 22.03(6)….”
Loftin has no prior discipline.
In accordance with SCR 22.09(3), Attorney
Eugene Loftin is hereby publicly
reprimanded.
Dated this 11th day of June, 2018.
|