Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Seth P. Hartigan

Citation: 2005 WI 164

Docket Number: 2005AP001017-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2005-12-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
2005 WI 164 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2005AP1017-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Seth P. Hartigan, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Seth P. Hartigan, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HARTIGAN 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
December 13, 2005   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: BUTLER, Jr., J., did not participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2005 WI 164
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2005AP1017-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Seth P. Hartigan, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Seth P. Hartigan, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
Dec 13, 2005 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report and recommendation 
of referee Russell L. Hanson that Attorney Seth P. Hartigan be 
publicly reprimanded following Attorney Hartigan's default in 
response to the complaint filed by the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation (OLR).  After our review of the matter, we adopt the 
referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law, and hold that 
Attorney Hartigan should be publicly reprimanded and ordered to 
pay the costs of this proceeding. 
No. 
2005AP1017-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
Attorney Hartigan was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in January 1998.  His license to practice law was 
suspended for six months by order dated January 19, 2005 for a 
variety of professional misconduct, including accepting a laptop 
computer in payment of a fee and retaining it for his personal 
use without informing his law firm, failing to protect his 
client's interests upon termination of a representation, and 
failing to keep a client reasonably informed as to the status of 
her parole hearing.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Hartigan, 2005 WI 3, 277 Wis. 2d 341, 690 N.W.2d 831.  His 
license remains suspended, as he has not yet petitioned for 
reinstatement.  See SCR 22.28(3).1  Attorney Hartigan had not 
been the subject of disciplinary proceedings prior to the 
January 2005 suspension. 
¶3 
The present proceeding arises out of a complaint filed 
by the OLR on April 19, 2005 alleging six counts of professional 
misconduct.  The OLR attempted on multiple occasions to have the 
complaint personally served on Attorney Hartigan, but all 
service attempts were unsuccessful.  Service was accomplished on 
May 27, 2005 by the OLR sending, via certified mail, an 
authenticated copy of the complaint and order to answer to 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.28(3) provides that "[t]he license of an attorney 
that is revoked or suspended for misconduct for six months or 
more shall be reinstated pursuant to the procedure set forth in 
SCR 22.29 to 22.33 and only by order of the supreme court." 
No. 
2005AP1017-D   
 
3 
 
Attorney Hartigan at the most recent address he had furnished to 
the State Bar of Wisconsin.  See SCR 22.13(1).2 
¶4 
When Attorney Hartigan failed to respond to the OLR's 
complaint, the OLR moved for the entry of a default judgment.  
The referee held a telephonic hearing on July 18, 2005 and 
attempted unsuccessfully to contact Attorney Hartigan at the 
last phone number he had provided to the Wisconsin State Bar.  
Ultimately, the referee found Attorney Hartigan to be in 
default.   
¶5 
The referee accepted the allegations of the complaint 
as his findings of fact, and concluded that they established 
that Attorney Hartigan had committed professional misconduct as 
set forth in the six counts of the complaint.  As requested by 
the OLR, the referee recommended that Attorney Hartigan be 
publicly reprimanded for his misconduct and ordered to pay the 
costs of the present proceeding. 
¶6 
Attorney Hartigan has not filed an appeal.  The matter 
is therefore submitted to the court for its review pursuant to 
SCR 22.17(2).3  The referee's findings of fact are to be affirmed 
                                                 
2 SCR 22.13(1) provides in pertinent part:  "If, with 
reasonable diligence, the respondent cannot be served under 
section 801.11(1)(a) or (b) of the statutes, service may be made 
by sending by certified mail an authenticated copy of the 
complaint and order to answer to the most recent address 
furnished by the respondent to the state bar." 
3 SCR 22.17(2) provides:  Review; appeal. 
(2) If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme 
court shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject 
or modify the referee's findings and conclusions or 
remand the matter to the referee for additional 
No. 
2005AP1017-D   
 
4 
 
unless they are clearly erroneous.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Sosnay, 209 Wis. 2d 241, 243, 562 N.W.2d 137 
(1997).  The referee's conclusions of law, however, are subject 
to de novo review.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Carroll, 2001 WI 130, ¶29, 248 Wis. 2d 662, 636 N.W.2d 718. 
¶7 
In summary, Attorney Hartigan's misconduct in the 
present case involved his representation of three clients:  
T.H., K.S. and M.B. 
¶8 
From 2001 through December 1, 2003, the State Public 
Defender's Office (SPD) certified Attorney Hartigan to represent 
clients at revocation hearings in front of the Division of 
Hearings and Appeals (the Division).  One of the individuals 
that Attorney Hartigan was appointed to represent was T.H.  
Attorney Hartigan was supposed to represent her at a parole 
revocation hearing on October 9, 2002.  Attorney Hartigan failed 
to communicate with T.H. at any time prior to the revocation 
hearing and failed to appear at the October 9, 2002 hearing.  
Ultimately the hearing was rescheduled but Attorney Hartigan 
failed to notify T.H. of the rescheduling. 
¶9 
The SPD also appointed Attorney Hartigan to represent 
K.S. at a probation revocation hearing scheduled for September 
29, 2003.  Pursuant to K.S.'s request, Attorney Hartigan 
attempted to reschedule the hearing but the administrative law 
judge (ALJ) refused his request.  Attorney Hartigan then failed 
                                                                                                                                                             
findings; 
and 
determine 
and 
impose 
appropriate 
discipline.  The court, on its own motion, may order 
the parties to file briefs in the matter. 
No. 
2005AP1017-D   
 
5 
 
to appear at the September 29, 2003 hearing and failed to notify 
either K.S. or the ALJ that he would not be present.  On 
September 
29, 
2003, 
David 
Schwartz, 
the 
Division's 
administrator, sent a letter to Attorney Hartigan admonishing 
him for failing to appear or to notify the Division that he 
would 
not 
be 
appearing. 
 
K.S.'s 
revocation 
hearing 
was 
rescheduled for two different dates in October 2003 but Attorney 
Hartigan failed to appear each time.   
¶10 When the ALJ finally was able to speak with Attorney 
Hartigan concerning his failure to appear, Attorney Hartigan 
denied that K.S. was his client or that he had knowledge of the 
rescheduled hearings.  Attorney Hartigan also told the ALJ that 
since he had not been recertified by the SPD, he could no longer 
represent K.S.  This was a false statement as Attorney 
Hartigan's certification had been extended by the SPD until 
December 1, 2003.  Attorney Hartigan had not informed K.S. that 
he was withdrawing as K.S.'s counsel.   
¶11 When the SPD subsequently appointed new counsel for 
K.S. pursuant to his request, Attorney Hartigan failed to 
transfer K.S.'s file to his new attorney.  Attorney Hartigan's 
failure to withdraw properly caused K.S. to use up his one 
request to the SPD for a new attorney.  Attorney Hartigan's 
pattern of conduct caused the Division to file a grievance 
against him with the OLR. 
¶12 The OLR attempted to contact Attorney Hartigan in late 
March 2004 but was not immediately successful.  On April 5, 
2004, Attorney Hartigan sent an email to an OLR investigator 
No. 
2005AP1017-D   
 
6 
 
indicating that he was now available to meet.  Attorney 
Hartigan, however, failed to appear at the scheduled time.  When 
the OLR subsequently served Attorney Hartigan with a Notice of 
Investigative Interview, Attorney Hartigan did finally appear 
but produced only a single letter relevant to the investigation.  
Although he promised to produce other documents, including a 
letter showing the transfer of K.S.'s file to successor counsel, 
Attorney Hartigan failed to do so. 
¶13 Attorney Hartigan committed similar misconduct in his 
representation of M.B.  M.B. retained Attorney Hartigan in 
connection with a criminal matter.  Subsequently, Attorney 
Hartigan was terminated from his associate position with his law 
firm.  Attorney Hartigan then appeared at M.B.'s trial on 
September 17, 2003.  He requested an adjournment on the grounds 
that he was waiting for M.B., who was in custody, to sign a 
letter transferring the file from Hartigan's former firm to 
Attorney Hartigan.  The trial court ultimately rescheduled the 
trial for December 3, 2003.  Subsequently, pursuant to M.B.'s 
request, Hartigan's former firm did transfer M.B.'s file to 
Attorney Hartigan.  Despite receiving the file, Attorney 
Hartigan did not appear at the December 3, 2003 trial and did 
not notify either his client or the court that he would not be 
appearing.  Although the court left multiple messages for 
Attorney Hartigan informing him that the trial had been 
adjourned until December 16, 2003, Attorney Hartigan did not 
appear on that date.  Attorney Hartigan did not file a motion to 
withdraw from his representation of M.B.  M.B. subsequently 
No. 
2005AP1017-D   
 
7 
 
stated that he received a letter from Attorney Hartigan stating 
that Attorney Hartigan had not appeared at the scheduled court 
dates because he needed additional money from M.B. to continue 
the representation. 
¶14 Based upon the above findings of fact, the referee 
concluded that Attorney Hartigan had engaged in professional 
misconduct as alleged in each of the six counts of the OLR's 
complaint.  With respect to the representation of T.H., the 
referee 
determined 
that 
Attorney 
Hartigan's 
failure 
to 
communicate with T.H. constituted a failure to keep the client 
reasonably informed about the status of a matter, contrary to 
SCR 20:1.4(a).4 
¶15 The referee also found four violations in connection 
with the K.S. representation and the OLR's investigation of the 
same.  The referee concluded that Attorney Hartigan's failure to 
appear at K.S.'s hearings represented a failure to act with 
reasonable diligence, in violation of SCR 20:1.3.5  The referee 
further determined that Attorney Hartigan had violated SCR 
20:1.4(a) by failing to communicate with K.S. concerning the 
status of his revocation hearing and Attorney Hartigan's alleged 
inability to continue the representation.  Attorney Hartigan 
                                                 
4 SCR 20:1.4(a) provides that "[a] lawyer shall keep a 
client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and 
promptly comply with reasonable requests for information." 
5 SCR 20:1.3 states that "[a] lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
No. 
2005AP1017-D   
 
8 
 
also violated the requirement of SCR 20:1.16(d)6 to protect his 
client's interest upon termination of the representation by 
failing to inform the client that he could no longer represent 
him and by failing to transfer the client's file to successor 
counsel.  The referee further concluded that Attorney Hartigan's 
failure to respond to the OLR requests for information and 
documents and his failure to appear for a scheduled interview 
with 
the 
district 
committee's 
investigator 
violated 
SCR 
22.04(1).7   
¶16 Finally, with respect to M.B., the referee concluded 
that Attorney Hartigan's failure to notify M.B., the court and 
opposing counsel of his intent not to appear at trial and his 
failure to file a formal motion to withdraw constituted a 
failure to protect the client's interests upon termination of a 
representation in violation of SCR 20:1.16(d). 
                                                 
6 SCR 
20:1.16(d) 
provides: 
 
Declining 
or 
terminating 
representation. 
 
(d) 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 that has not been earned.  
The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to 
the extent permitted by other law. 
7 SCR 22.04(1) provides that "[t]he director may refer a 
matter 
to 
a 
district 
committee 
for 
assistance 
in 
the 
investigation.  A respondent has the duty to cooperate specified 
in SCR 21.15(4) and 22.03(2) in respect to the district 
committee.  The committee may subpoena and compel the production 
of documents specified in SCR 22.03(8) and 22.42." 
No. 
2005AP1017-D   
 
9 
 
¶17 Based on these findings of fact and conclusions of 
law, which we adopt, we accept the referee's recommendation that 
Attorney Hartigan be publicly reprimanded for his professional 
misconduct.  From both this proceeding and the prior proceeding, 
we note a disturbing pattern by Attorney Hartigan of failing to 
represent his clients diligently and to conduct himself as an 
officer of the court.  As noted above, Attorney Hartigan's 
license remains suspended for his previous misconduct.  The 
present misconduct will also be taken into account in the event 
that Attorney Hartigan petitions for reinstatement of his 
license to practice law.  Finally, in addition to the public 
reprimand, we also agree with the referee's recommendation that 
Attorney Hartigan should pay the costs associated with this 
disciplinary proceeding, totaling $613.28 as of August 12, 2005. 
¶18 IT IS ORDERED that Attorney Seth B. Hartigan is 
publicly reprimanded for his professional misconduct. 
¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Attorney Seth P. Hartigan pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, provided that if 
the costs are not paid within the time specified and absent a 
showing to this court of an inability to pay those costs within 
that time, the license of Seth P. Hartigan to practice law in 
Wisconsin shall be suspended until further order of the court. 
¶20 LOUIS B. BUTLER, JR., J., did not participate. 
 
No. 
2005AP1017-D   
 
 
 
1