Case Title: Michael B. Sandy v.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1997AP000623-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 1997-04-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
97-0623-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary  
Proceedings Against 
Michael D. Sandy, 
Attorney at Law.  
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SANDY 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
April 16, 1997 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating:  
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
No.  97-0623-D 
 
 
1 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing 
and modification.  The final version will 
appear in the bound volume of the official 
reports. 
 
 
No. 97-0623-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against MICHAEL B. SANDY, Attorney at Law. 
FILED 
 
APR 16, 1997 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
Attorney 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
 
Attorney’s 
license 
suspended. 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the stipulation filed by 
the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (Board) 
pursuant to SCR 21.09(3m)1 in which Attorney Michael B. Sandy 
stipulated to facts establishing his professional misconduct in 
several matters. The parties also stipulated to the violations 
                     
1 SCR 21.09 provides, in pertinent part: Procedure. 
(3m) The board may file with a complaint a stipulation by 
the board and the respondent attorney to the facts, conclusions 
of law and discipline to be imposed. The supreme court may 
consider the complaint and stipulation without appointing a 
referee. If the supreme court approves the stipulation, it shall 
adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of law and impose the 
stipulated 
discipline. 
If 
the 
supreme 
court 
rejects 
the 
stipulation, a referee shall be appointed pursuant to sub. (4) 
and the matter shall proceed pursuant to SCR chapter 22. A 
stipulation that is rejected has no evidentiary value and is 
without prejudice to the respondent’s defense of the proceeding 
or the board’s prosecution of the complaint.  
 
 
No.  97-0623-D 
 
 
2 
of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys caused by 
that conduct and to a two-year license suspension, consecutive 
to the license suspension to which Attorney Sandy’s license is 
currently 
subject, 
as 
discipline. 
The 
misconduct concerns 
Attorney Sandy’s neglect of several client matters to which he 
was appointed by the State Public Defender (SPD), his neglect of 
other client matters, his failure to deposit into a trust 
account funds to which an investigator he had hired was entitled 
and to notify the investigator of his receipt of those funds and 
promptly deliver them to her, misrepresentation and dishonesty 
in statements to the SPD regarding the investigator’s bill for 
services, making a false statement to a court and to his client 
regarding action he had taken on his client’s behalf, failing to 
send client files to successor counsel, and not cooperating with 
the Board’s investigation of these and other matters.  
 
¶2 
We adopt the 
parties’ 
stipulation 
of 
facts 
establishing that misconduct and the conclusions of law in 
respect to the rules it violated. We determine that the two-year 
license 
suspension 
to 
which 
the 
parties 
stipulated 
is 
appropriate discipline to impose for Attorney Sandy’s numerous 
acts 
of 
professional 
misconduct 
in 
the 
course 
of 
his 
representation of clients, his handling of funds belonging to 
another, 
and 
his 
lack 
of 
cooperation 
with 
the 
court’s 
disciplinary process.  
 
¶3 
Attorney Sandy was admitted to the practice of 
law in Wisconsin in 1989 and practiced in Milwaukee. The court 
suspended his license for one year, commencing June 3, 1996, as 
discipline for attempting to represent a person in a matter 
 
 
No.  97-0623-D 
 
 
3 
adverse to a client he was representing in a criminal matter, 
gaining access to a minor’s confidential children’s court file 
without court authorization by misrepresenting that he was the 
minor’s attorney, misrepresenting to the court the source of his 
information 
regarding 
the 
minor’s 
prior 
sexual 
assault 
allegations, failing to keep a client reasonably informed of the 
status of his case and refusing to take delivery of the client’s 
certified letter, and using cocaine with a client. In addition, 
the court imposed conditions requiring Attorney Sandy to submit 
to random drug testing for two years. Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Sandy, 200 Wis. 2d 529, 546 N.W.2d 876.  
 
¶4 
The misconduct to which the parties stipulated is 
the following. In March, 1995, when Attorney Sandy’s client was 
released on bond on a criminal charge with the condition that he 
be monitored by electronic bracelet, the client told him he 
could not pay the cost of that monitoring and asked him to 
prepare the necessary form to have that cost waived. Attorney 
Sandy told the client he would do so but never did, with the 
result that the client was assessed that cost. When he failed to 
return any of the client’s numerous phone calls, the client 
sought new counsel. Attorney Sandy’s failure to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing this client 
violated SCR 20:1.3.2  
 
¶5 
A 
second 
matter 
concerned 
Attorney 
Sandy’s 
representation of a client in an appeal from a criminal 
                     
2 SCR 20:1.3 provides: Diligence 
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in representing a client.  
 
 
No.  97-0623-D 
 
 
4 
conviction, for which he was appointed by the SPD in February, 
1991. Without consulting the client, Attorney Sandy notified the 
SPD that no court action was taken because there was no merit to 
any postconviction proceeding and the client agreed to have the 
case closed. Soon thereafter, the client wrote Attorney Sandy 
that, although success seemed unlikely, he wanted to pursue a 
sentence modification. The client then filed a motion pro se for 
an extension of time to file a notice of appeal, asserting that 
Attorney Sandy had not responded to his attempts to contact him.  
 
¶6 
The Court of Appeals held the client’s motion in 
abeyance and ordered Attorney Sandy to file a response. In that 
response, Attorney Sandy stated that he understood the client 
had agreed to his closing the file. The client responded to a 
subsequent Court of Appeals order that he wanted Attorney Sandy 
to assist him in filing a sentence modification motion. The 
Court of Appeals ordered Attorney Sandy to remain counsel of 
record and take appropriate steps to pursue a postconviction 
motion for sentence modification. The SPD wrote Attorney Sandy 
that he should file any motion he believed had arguable merit 
or, if he found none, he should file a no merit report. Attorney 
Sandy took no action and did not respond to numerous letters 
from the client over the next five years.  
 
¶7 
The client ultimately wrote the SPD in March, 
1996 concerning Attorney Sandy’s failure to act, and other 
counsel was assigned to represent him. The Court of Appeals then 
dismissed Attorney Sandy as appellate counsel, imposed a $500 
penalty on him for failing to comply with its orders, and 
extended the time for the client’s new counsel to file a notice 
 
 
No.  97-0623-D 
 
 
5 
of appeal or a no merit report. When Attorney Sandy failed to 
pay the penalty timely, the Court of Appeals found him in 
contempt, and Attorney Sandy paid the penalty within the time 
provided for purging the contempt. Attorney Sandy’s failure to 
pursue or file a request for sentence modification or a no merit 
report and his failure to take timely action in accordance with 
the Court of Appeals orders violated SCR 20:1.3.  
 
¶8 
In a third matter, Attorney Sandy sent to the SPD 
for payment a bill for services of a private investigator he had 
hired in the spring of 1995 in a client’s criminal matter. The 
SPD remitted payment to Attorney Sandy of his attorney fees and 
the $1107 investigator fee September 21, 1995, and Attorney 
Sandy deposited the entire payment into his personal bank 
account, not into a trust account. Attorney Sandy told the 
investigator he had received payment of her bill and would send 
her a check immediately, but when the investigator received no 
payment, she began telephoning him, leaving numerous messages on 
his answering machine. Attorney Sandy did not respond to any of 
her calls.  
 
¶9 
On October 16, 1995, the Internal Revenue Service 
levied against Attorney Sandy’s personal bank account, which 
included the funds belonging to the investigator. When the 
investigator again asked him for payment, Attorney Sandy sent 
her a check for $100, informed her of the IRS levy, and promised 
to pay her the remaining amount in full as soon as he was able. 
Attorney Sandy did not respond to the investigator’s subsequent 
requests over the next six weeks that he make regular payments 
on the amount owing and that he verify the tax levy.  
 
 
No.  97-0623-D 
 
 
6 
 
¶10 In January, 1996, Attorney Sandy sent the SPD a 
check for the remaining amount to which the investigator was 
entitled, asking it to make that payment to her because he “in 
good conscience” could not do so because he believed her bill 
was inflated and exceeded the amount the SPD had authorized. 
Prior to that letter, Attorney Sandy never had questioned any of 
the amounts specified in the investigator’s bills during his 
conversations, correspondence, and dealings with her, nor had he 
indicated that she had not earned payment in full of the 
services she asserted.  
 
¶11 Attorney Sandy’s deposit and retention of the 
payment of the investigator’s services in his personal checking 
account violated the trust account rules, SCR 20:1.15(a).3 In 
addition, his failure to notify the investigator in writing of 
his receipt of funds belonging to her and promptly deliver them 
to her violated SCR 20:1.15(b).4 Finally, his statement to the 
                     
3 SCR 20:1.15 provides, in pertinent part: Safekeeping 
property 
(a) A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from the 
lawyer’s own property, property of clients or third persons that 
is 
in 
the 
lawyer’s 
possession 
in 
connection 
with 
a 
representation. All funds of clients paid to a lawyer or law 
firm shall be deposited in one or more identifiable trust 
accounts as provided in paragraph (c) maintained in a bank, 
trust company, credit union or savings and loan association 
authorized to do business and located in Wisconsin, which 
account shall be clearly designated as “Client’s Account” or 
“Trust Account” or words of similar import, and no funds 
belonging to the lawyer or law firm except funds reasonably 
sufficient to pay account service charges may be deposited in 
such an account. . . . 
4 SCR 20:1.15 provides, in pertinent part: Safekeeping 
property 
. . . 
 
 
No.  97-0623-D 
 
 
7 
SPD that her bill for services was inflated constituted 
dishonesty and misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).5  
 
¶12 In a fourth matter, even though the client he was 
appointed by the SPD to represent on a criminal charge in 
January, 1995 was incarcerated as a result of a prior conviction 
and despite several attempts by that client to contact him, 
Attorney Sandy did not communicate with the client or take any 
action on 
the client’s 
behalf between the 
time of his 
appointment and the following June. After the client’s trial was 
adjourned because the client had not been in contact with his 
appointed counsel, Attorney Sandy met with the client at the end 
of June, 1995, and recommended that the client plead guilty. 
Attorney Sandy then had no further contact with the client 
during that summer; he did not respond to the client’s letters 
asking for copies of any motions that had been filed and 
expressing concern about how the case was to be resolved.  
                                                                  
(b) Upon receiving funds or other property in which a 
client or third person has an interest, a lawyer shall promptly 
notify the client or third person in writing. Except as stated 
in this rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with 
the client, a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client or 
third person any funds or other property that the client or 
third person is entitled to receive and, upon request by the 
client or third person, shall render a full accounting regarding 
such property.  
5 SCR 20:8.4 provides, in pertinent part: Misconduct 
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: 
. . . 
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation.  
 
 
No.  97-0623-D 
 
 
8 
 
¶13 When the trial was adjourned again at the end of 
October, 1995, Attorney Sandy tried to convince his client to 
plead guilty. When the client would not agree to do so because 
he claimed innocence, Attorney Sandy said he would file 
discovery motions and a motion for speedy trial. Two days later, 
he wrote the client confirming the new trial date, said he had 
filed the discovery demand and pretrial motions with the court, 
but advised the client that it would not be wise to file a 
speedy trial demand. Nonetheless, the client wrote Attorney 
Sandy in November, 1995 reiterating his request for a speedy 
trial motion, as well as copies of various charging documents. 
Attorney Sandy did not respond to that letter or file a speedy 
trial demand. The client then filed a pro se motion for a speedy 
trial.  
 
¶14 At the end of January, 1996, the client wrote 
Attorney Sandy that he had not received a response to his 
earlier letter and asked him to prepare a motion to dismiss the 
action on the ground that his right to a speedy trial had been 
violated. Attorney Sandy did not file that motion, and the 
matter went to trial February 5, 1996. On the morning of trial, 
Attorney Sandy approached the holding cell next to the courtroom 
where his client was being held to discuss the case, but when 
the client refused to do so because six other inmates were in 
that cell with him, Attorney Sandy shouted an obscenity to him.  
 
¶15 At the client’s sentencing following conviction, 
Attorney Sandy told the court he had attempted unsuccessfully to 
obtain a progress report concerning his client’s conduct from 
the institution where the client had been incarcerated. He said 
 
 
No.  97-0623-D 
 
 
9 
he did not want the sentencing hearing adjourned for failure to 
have 
that 
report 
but 
hoped 
the 
court would 
accept his 
representation that the social worker told him his client’s 
progress was “exemplary.” The court accepted Attorney Sandy’s 
representation as an officer of the court. Contrary to his 
assertions, Attorney Sandy had not requested a progress report 
from the prison. Thereafter, Attorney Sandy did not comply with 
two requests from successor counsel appointed by the SPD to 
forward the client’s file.  
 
¶16 Attorney Sandy’s failure to meet with the client 
or take any action for six months following his appointment and 
his failure to seek a progress report from the prison violated 
SCR 20:1.3. His failure to communicate with the client and 
respond to several letters from him seeking information and 
requesting documents violated SCR 20:1.4(a).6 His statement to 
the court and to his client that he had attempted to obtain a 
progress report from the prison constituted a false statement 
knowingly made to a court, in violation of SCR 20:3.3(a)(1),7 and 
dishonesty and misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c). 
Attorney Sandy’s failure to provide the client’s file to 
                     
6 SCR 20:1.4 provides, in pertinent part: Communication 
(a) A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about 
the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable 
requests for information.  
7 SCR 20:3.3 provides, in pertinent part: Candor toward the 
tribunal 
(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: 
(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal; 
 
 
No.  97-0623-D 
 
 
10
successor counsel violated SCR 20:1.16(d).8  and his directing an 
obscenity at his client in the presence of others constituted 
offensive personality, contrary to the Attorney’s Oath, SCR 
40.15,9 and a violation of SCR 20:8.4(g).10  
 
¶17 In another matter, Attorney Sandy filed a notice 
of intent to pursue postconviction relief on behalf of a client 
the SPD had appointed him to represent at trial in November, 
1994. Attorney Sandy filed no motion or other pleading in the 
postconviction matter thereafter. The SPD, who had trial 
transcripts sent to Attorney Sandy in late January, 1995, 
appointed other counsel to represent the client. Attorney Sandy 
had not seen the client from the time he was appointed in the 
appeal until he was removed and did not return the client’s 
                     
8 SCR 20:1.16 provides, in pertinent part: 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.  
9 SCR 40.15 requires an attorney to take an oath or 
affirmation, in pertinent part, that the attorney “will abstain 
from all offensive personality.” 
10 SCR 20:8.4 provides, in pertinent part: Misconduct 
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: 
. . . 
(g) violate the attorney’s oath.  
 
 
No.  97-0623-D 
 
 
11
calls or respond to several letters from him. He also did not 
comply with the SPD’s requests to forward the transcripts and 
other documents to successor counsel. Attorney Sandy’s failure 
to meet with the client for some 12 months while appointed to 
represent him in an appeal and his failure to file a motion for 
postconviction relief or advise the client that there was no 
basis to pursue that relief violated SCR 20:1.3. His failure to 
provide the client’s file to successor counsel violated SCR 
20:1.16(d).  
 
¶18 In each of the matters set forth above, as well 
as in a sixth matter, Attorney Sandy did not respond or, when he 
did, did not respond fully to the Board’s requests for 
information concerning grievances it had received. In five of 
those matters, Attorney Sandy had requested and received an 
extension of time to respond but made no further contact with 
the Board. Attorney Sandy also did not respond when the Board 
sent him a copy of its investigative report, after its numerous 
letters had gone unanswered. Attorney Sandy’s failure to 
cooperate with the Board’s investigation violated SCR 22.07(2) 
and (3)11 and 21.03(4).12  
                     
11 SCR 22.07 provides, in pertinent part: Investigation.  
. . . 
(2) 
During 
the 
course 
of 
an 
investigation, 
the 
administrator or a committee may notify the respondent of the 
subject being investigated. The respondent shall fully and 
fairly disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to the 
alleged misconduct or medical incapacity within 20 days of being 
served by ordinary mail a request for response to a grievance. 
The administrator in his or her discretion may allow additional 
time 
to 
respond. 
Failure 
to 
provide 
information 
or 
misrepresentation 
in 
a 
disclosure 
is 
misconduct. 
The 
 
 
No.  97-0623-D 
 
 
12
 
¶19 As discipline for that misconduct, the Board and 
Attorney Sandy stipulated to a two-year suspension of his 
license to practice law, to run consecutively to the license 
suspension currently in effect. The stipulation noted that 
Attorney Sandy has delivered to the Board file materials 
concerning two client matters considered in this proceeding, as 
well as those of a third former client. All of those materials 
have been delivered to successor counsel, and the Board is not 
aware of any other former clients who have requested and not 
received their files.  
 
¶20 The parties’ stipulation of facts concerning 
Attorney Sandy’s professional misconduct in these matters and of 
conclusions regarding the rules that misconduct violated is 
accepted. As discipline for that misconduct, we impose the 
license suspension to which the parties have stipulated.  
                                                                  
administrator or committee may make a further investigation 
before making a recommendation to the board.  
(3) 
The 
administrator 
or 
committee 
may 
compel 
the 
respondent to answer questions, furnish documents and present 
any information deemed relevant to the investigation. Failure of 
the respondent to answer questions, furnish documents or present 
relevant information is misconduct. The administrator or a 
committee may compel any other person to produce pertinent 
books, papers and documents under SCR 22.22.  
12 
SCR 
21.03 
provides, 
in 
pertinent 
part: 
General 
principles. 
. . . 
(4) Every attorney shall cooperate with the board and the 
administrator in the investigation, prosecution and disposition 
of grievances and complaints filed with or by the board or 
administrator.  
 
 
No.  97-0623-D 
 
 
13
 
¶21 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Michael B. 
Sandy to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 
two years, commencing June 3, 1997.  
 
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the 
date of this order Michael B. Sandy pay to the Board of 
Attorneys 
Professional 
Responsibility 
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 his 
inability to pay the costs within that time, the license of 
Michael B. Sandy to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain 
suspended until further order of the court.  
 
¶23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Michael B. Sandy 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended.