Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Evan M. Read

Citation: 2012 WI 121

Docket Number: 2010AP002527-D, 2011AP001816-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2012-12-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
2012 WI 121 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2011AP1816-D   
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Evan M. Read, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
       v. 
Evan M. Read, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST READ     
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
        
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
        
 
 
       
 
 
2012 WI 121
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2011AP1816-D   
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Evan M. Read, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Evan M. Read, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
Dec 4, 2012 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded. 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   On June 18, 2012, Referee Kim M. 
Peterson filed a memorandum decision recommending that Attorney 
Evan M. Read be declared in default, concluding that Attorney 
Read engaged in professional misconduct, and recommending that 
he be publicly reprimanded.  Since Attorney Read failed to 
present a defense despite being given the opportunity to do so, 
we declare him to be in default.  We further conclude that a 
public reprimand is an appropriate sanction for his misconduct.  
No. 
   
 
2 
 
We also find that the costs of the proceeding, which are $374.41 
as of July 6, 2012, should be assessed against Attorney Read. 
¶2 
Attorney 
Read 
was 
admitted 
to 
practice 
law 
in 
Wisconsin in 2007 and practiced in Milwaukee.  On May 13, 2010, 
this court temporarily suspended Attorney Read's license to 
practice law in Wisconsin due to his willful failure to 
cooperate 
with 
the 
Office 
of 
Lawyer 
Regulation's 
(OLR) 
investigation into a grievance filed by a former client.  
Attorney Read's license remains suspended. 
¶3 
On August 8, 2011, the OLR filed a complaint alleging 
six counts of professional misconduct.  All counts arose out of 
Attorney Read's representation of K.W., who had been convicted 
of bail jumping.  In October 2007 Attorney Read agreed to accept 
an appointment by the State Public Defender (SPD) to represent 
K.W. in seeking postconviction relief or an appeal.  In late 
November 2007 K.W. signed Department of Corrections form DOC-
1631 (Telephone Request Attorney Add/Delete), adding Attorney 
Read as his attorney of record.  On January 30, 2008, the 
Telephone Request Attorney Add/Delete form was stamped "Void" 
because at least 30 days had elapsed without response from 
Attorney Read. 
¶4 
In early August 2008 K.W. wrote to the SPD asking for 
assistance in getting Attorney Read to contact him.  K.W. noted 
he had already sent several letters to Attorney Read.  On 
August 13, 2008, Attorney Kenneth Lund, Attorney Manager for the 
SPD, wrote to Attorney Read to convey a copy of a letter from 
No. 
   
 
3 
 
K.W. expressing concern about Attorney Read's representation and 
requesting a response. 
¶5 
On September 4, 2008, K.W. wrote to Attorney Lund to 
report he had been moved from Jackson Correctional Institution 
to the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility at Boscobel.  K.W. 
complained that the prison business office had sent a form to 
Attorney Read to allow unmonitored telephone calls from K.W. but 
Attorney Read had failed to sign it or otherwise respond.  K.W. 
complained to the SPD that it had been almost a year since 
Attorney Read had been assigned to his case and K.W. had 
received no word at all from him. 
¶6 
On September 9, 2008, Attorney Lund wrote to Attorney 
Read noting receipt of a second complaint from K.W.  Attorney 
Lund expressed concern about Attorney Read's failure to respond 
to his August 13, 2008 letter asking for a status report.  On 
October 6, 2008, Attorney Lund wrote to Attorney Read noting his 
lack of response to the previous letters. 
¶7 
On October 7, 2008, Attorney Lund received an undated 
letter from K.W. advising that he had been moved to Columbia 
Correctional Institution in Portage.  K.W. asked if Attorney 
Lund had heard from Attorney Read.  K.W. expressed concern over 
the whereabouts of his case file and the possible difficulty in 
filing a late appeal. 
¶8 
On October 21, 2008, the OLR received a written 
grievance from K.W. saying that since January 2008 he had been 
making repeated attempts to contact Attorney Read regarding the 
status of his appeal. 
No. 
   
 
4 
 
¶9 
On November 3, 2008, an OLR intake investigator sent a 
copy of K.W.'s grievance to Attorney Read at his business 
address in Milwaukee.  The intake investigator requested a 
response from Attorney Read by November 10, 2008.  The OLR 
received a letter from Attorney Read dated November 10, 2008.  
The 
letter 
said, 
"[K.W.] 
is 
certainly 
entitled 
to 
his 
frustration; I can only apologize for my inattentiveness.  
 . . .   I will not repeat my mistakes."  Attorney Read claimed 
he had never received the letters K.W. had sent him because his 
offices had moved.  The letter went on to say, "I'm a rather 
inexperienced attorney, so I wasn't sure how to find you in the 
prison system."  Attorney Read said he was waiting for 
transcripts from K.W.'s case.  The letter concluded by saying, 
"I'm sorry things got so messed up——I'll bend my efforts toward 
assessing your appeal with all possible speed." 
¶10 On December 4, 2008, Attorney Lund wrote to Attorney 
Read documenting his unsuccessful efforts to get a response from 
Attorney Read.  Attorney Lund said, "Your unwillingness to 
respond to me and, apparently, to your client is simply 
unacceptable."  Attorney Lund provided K.W.'s new address at 
Columbia Correctional Institution and asked that Attorney Read 
contact both K.W. and Attorney Lund immediately. 
¶11 In December 2008, the OLR offered Attorney Read a 
diversion agreement under SCR 22.10 in connection with K.W.'s 
grievance.  The OLR received Attorney Read's acceptance of the 
terms and conditions of the agreement on January 14, 2009. 
No. 
   
 
5 
 
¶12 December 22, 2008 was the deadline for filing a notice 
of appeal or motion for postconviction relief in K.W.'s case.  
There is no record that Attorney Read initiated any appeal in 
connection with K.W.'s case, nor is there any indication that he 
sought an extension of time to file an appeal or that he pursued 
any sort of postconviction relief in the circuit court on K.W.'s 
behalf. 
¶13 By letter dated January 14, 2009, an OLR intake 
investigator notified K.W. that Attorney Read had entered into a 
one-year diversion agreement and that the grievance would be 
held in abeyance pending either successful completion, or 
breach, of the agreement. 
¶14 K.W. wrote to Attorney Lund again on May 15, 2009, 
complaining that he had still not heard from Attorney Read.  
Attorney Lund sent Attorney Read an e-mail on June 1, 2009, 
noting that he had written to Attorney Read four times and 
called him several times and that Attorney Read had failed to 
respond to any efforts by either Attorney Lund or K.W. to reach 
him. 
¶15 Attorney Read telephoned Attorney Lund on June 2, 
2009, saying he thought a new attorney had been assigned to 
represent K.W. after K.W. had filed the grievance.  Attorney 
Read also reported that he had moved and had not received any of 
Attorney Lund's letters prior to the June 1, 2009 communication.  
Attorney Read said he agreed that he needed to fix the problems 
with his representation, starting by meeting with K.W. either in 
person or by telephone. 
No. 
   
 
6 
 
¶16 On 
June 
4, 
2009, 
K.W. 
wrote 
to 
Attorney 
Lund 
complaining that Attorney Read was not keeping him apprised of 
the status of his appeal and was not contacting him at all.  On 
June 11, 2009, Attorney Read wrote to K.W. saying that he had 
driven to Portage to meet with K.W. on June 6 but that he had 
been turned away because the Department of Corrections (DOC) or 
the institution has a regulation that people with obvious flu or 
cold symptoms may not visit.  Attorney Read said he was no 
longer sick and promised to return every Saturday until he was 
able to meet with K.W. 
¶17 On August 13, 2009, Attorney Lund sent another e-mail 
to Attorney Read requesting that he provide whatever information 
and documentation he had to demonstrate he had provided the 
representation to which K.W. was entitled.  On September 24, 
2009, K.W. wrote to Attorney Lund requesting that a new attorney 
be assigned to represent him in place of Attorney Read.  On 
October 21, 2009, Attorney Lund wrote to Attorney Read to inform 
him that a new attorney was being appointed for K.W. because 
Attorney Read had failed to respond to telephone calls and 
letters.  Attorney Lund's letter requested Attorney Read to 
immediately send the entire case file, including transcripts, 
court records, correspondence, and notes, to the SPD so that 
successor appointed counsel could represent K.W. and attempt to 
reinstate his appeal rights.  Attorney Read did not provide the 
SPD with the requested materials. 
¶18 On November 2, 2009, the OLR wrote to Attorney Read to 
remind him about his obligations under the diversion agreement.  
No. 
   
 
7 
 
On December 3, 2009, an OLR investigator wrote to Attorney Read 
to inform him that Attorney Lund had filed a grievance against 
him and that Attorney Read was required to provide a written 
response.  Attorney Read failed to respond either to that letter 
or to subsequent letters from the OLR.  On May 13, 2010, this 
court temporarily suspended Attorney Read's license to practice 
law in Wisconsin, until further notice of the court, due to 
Attorney Read's willful failure to cooperate with the OLR's 
investigation. 
¶19 On February 23, 2010, the OLR notified Attorney Read 
that the diversion agreement stemming from the grievance filed 
by K.W. was being terminated because Attorney Read had failed to 
fulfill its conditions. 
¶20 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct: 
[Count One:]  By failing to take any steps to 
perfect an appeal, move for post-conviction relief, or 
otherwise address his client's matter for two years, 
[Attorney] Read violated SCR 20:1.3.1 
[Count Two:]  By failing to communicate at all 
with the client for over one year, and thereafter 
communicating only sporadically and inadequately as to 
the status of the client's matter, [Attorney] Read 
violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3).2 
[Count Three:]  By failing to promptly respond to 
repeated requests for information on the status of his 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.3 provides: "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
2 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) states a lawyer shall "keep the client 
reasonably informed about the status of the matter; . . . ." 
No. 
   
 
8 
 
client's 
matter, 
[Attorney] 
Read 
violated 
SCR 20:1.4(a)(4).3 
[Count Four:]  By failing to acquire and use 
requisite knowledge to find a client in the Wisconsin 
prison system, [Attorney] Read violated SCR 20:1.1.4 
[Count Five:]  After 
representation 
was 
terminated, by failing to provide the case file to 
[the] client or successor counsel, despite requests, 
[Attorney] Read violated [] SCR 20:1.16(d).5 
[Count Six:]  By failing to respond to [the] 
initial OLR letter of 12/3/2009, requesting a written 
response that fully and fairly disclosed all facts and 
circumstances pertaining to the misconduct alleged in 
the Lund grievance (2009MA1888) within 20 days and by 
willfully 
failing 
to 
cooperate 
with 
the 
OLR 
investigation, including by failing to respond to the 
OLR letters of 1/5/2010, 1/26/2010[,] and 2/23/2010, 
                                                 
3 SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) states a lawyer shall "promptly comply 
with reasonable requests by the client for information; . . . ." 
4 SCR 20:1.1 provides: "A lawyer shall provide competent 
representation to a client.  Competent representation requires 
the 
legal 
knowledge, 
skill, 
thoroughness 
and 
preparation 
reasonably necessary for the representation." 
5 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides: 
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. 
No. 
   
 
9 
 
[Attorney] Read violated SCRs 20:8.4(h),6 22.03(2)[,]7 
and 22.03(6).8 
¶21 The OLR's complaint and order to answer were sent to 
Attorney Read at the most recent address he had provided to the 
State Bar of Wisconsin and to the last residential address known 
for him.  The complaint and order to answer were also sent to 
another address that was obtained through an internet search.  
In addition, the OLR attempted to serve Attorney Read through a 
process server but despite diligent efforts the process server 
was unable to locate Attorney Read.  Service of the complaint 
                                                 
6 SCR 20:8.4(h) 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 21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b),  SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6), or 
SCR 22.04(1); . . . ." 
7 SCR 22.03(2) provides: 
Upon commencing an investigation, the director 
shall notify the respondent of the matter being 
investigated unless in the opinion of the director the 
investigation of the matter requires otherwise.  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.  The director may 
allow additional time to respond.  Following receipt 
of the response, the director may conduct further 
investigation and may compel the respondent to answer 
questions, 
furnish 
documents, 
and 
present 
any 
information deemed relevant to the investigation. 
8 SCR 22.03(6) states as follows: 
 
In 
the 
course 
of 
the 
investigation, 
the 
respondent's 
wilful 
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. 
No. 
   
 
10 
 
and order to answer was accomplished by the OLR sending, via 
certified mail, an authenticated copy of the complaint and order 
to answer to Attorney Read at the most recent address he had 
furnished to the State Bar of Wisconsin.  See SCR 22.13(1). 
¶22 When Attorney Read failed to respond to the OLR's 
complaint, the OLR moved for the entry of a default judgment.  
The referee recommends that Attorney Read be found in default.  
The referee accepted the allegations of the complaint as the 
findings of fact in the case and concluded that those facts 
established that Attorney Read had committed professional 
misconduct as set forth in the six counts of the complaint.  As 
requested by the OLR, the referee recommended that Attorney Read 
be publicly reprimanded for his misconduct and that he be 
ordered to pay the costs of the proceeding. 
¶23 Attorney Read has not filed an appeal so this matter 
is 
submitted 
to 
the 
court 
for 
its 
review 
pursuant 
to 
SCR 22.17(2).  Although Attorney Read was given the opportunity 
to file an answer and present a defense to the OLR's complaint, 
he has failed to do so.  Accordingly, we declare him to be in 
default. 
¶24 A referee's findings of fact are affirmed unless 
clearly erroneous.  Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.  
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 
14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.  The court may impose 
whatever sanction is sees fit regardless of the referee's 
recommendation.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.  We 
No. 
   
 
11 
 
adopt the referee's findings of fact, as recited in the OLR's 
complaint, and agree with the referee's conclusions of law that 
Attorney Read committed misconduct as alleged in the complaint.  
We further agree that Attorney Read should be required to pay 
the full costs of this proceeding. 
¶25 IT 
IS 
ORDERED 
that 
Evan 
M. 
Read 
is 
publicly 
reprimanded for his professional misconduct. 
¶26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the temporary suspension of 
the license of Evan M. Read to practice law in the State of 
Wisconsin due to his willful failure to cooperate with the 
investigation of the Office of Lawyer Regulation is hereby 
terminated.  The termination of this temporary suspension does 
not affect in any way any administrative suspension currently in 
effect.  Any such administrative suspension shall remain in 
effect 
until 
Evan 
M. 
Read 
complies 
with 
the 
applicable 
requirements 
for 
reinstatement 
following 
an 
administrative 
suspension and until further order of the court or notice of 
reinstatement from the appropriate entity authorized under the 
Supreme Court Rules to reinstate attorneys. 
¶27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Evan M. Read shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding. 
¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the director of the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation shall advise the court if there has not 
been full compliance with all conditions of this order.  
 
No. 
   
 
 
 
1