Case Title: Patrick T. Cowan v.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1995AP000641-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 1995-12-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 95-0641-D 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
 
 
 
 
No.  95-0641-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN             :                IN SUPREME COURT 
                                                                   
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against PATRICK T. COWAN, Attorney at Law. 
 
FILED 
 
 
DEC 21, 1995 
 
 
 Marilyn L. Graves 
  Clerk of Supreme Court 
  
Madison, WI  
 
                                                                
   
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
 
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the referee 
that the license of Patrick T. Cowan to practice law in Wisconsin 
be suspended for six months as discipline for professional 
misconduct.  That misconduct consisted of his continuing to 
practice law while his license was suspended for misconduct, 
failing to return property to a client upon request, and failing 
to 
cooperate 
with 
the 
Board 
of 
Attorneys 
Professional 
Responsibility (Board) in its investigation of three grievances.   
 
We determine that the recommended license suspension is 
appropriate discipline to impose for Attorney Cowan's misconduct. 
 
No. 95-0641-D 
 
 
 
2 
 He has established a pattern of not responding timely to client 
matters and has repeatedly refused to cooperate with the 
disciplinary authorities.  We also impose as a condition of the 
reinstatement of his license the recommendation of the referee 
concerning Attorney Cowan's fitness to resume the practice of law.  
 
Attorney Cowan was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in 
1969 and practices in Superior.  His license is currently 
suspended, pursuant to court order of October 16, 1992, when it 
was suspended for 90 days as discipline for neglect of a client's 
legal matter and his failure to cooperate with the disciplinary 
authorities in its investigation.  Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Cowan, 171 Wis. 2d 71, 490 N.W.2d 17.  That suspension 
continues for the reason that Attorney Cowan has not provided the 
Board the requisite documentation that he terminated his law 
practice and notified his clients of the suspension and has not 
paid the costs of the proceeding.  Prior to that suspension, 
Attorney Cowan was twice disciplined for professional misconduct: 
 he received a private reprimand from the Board in October, 1986 
for neglect of client matters and failure to cooperate with the 
Board; the Board publicly reprimanded him, with his consent, 
October 27, 1988, for his neglect of three client matters and his 
failure to cooperate with the Board.   
 
The referee, the Hon. Timothy L. Vocke, reserve judge, made 
findings of fact based on the allegations of the Board's 
complaint, as Attorney Cowan did not file timely an answer or 
 
No. 95-0641-D 
 
 
 
3 
other responsive pleading.  In March, 1993, while his license was 
suspended, Attorney Cowan was in the Douglas county courthouse and 
discussed settlement with the attorney for the plaintiff in a 
replevin action on behalf of the defendant, who had appeared pro 
se at the initial hearing.  Attorney Cowan told the plaintiff's 
counsel that he was a licensed attorney, but stated that he was 
not in fact representing the defendant but was assisting him 
because he was a family friend.  Upon further inquiry, Attorney 
Cowan acknowledged that his license to practice law currently was 
under suspension.  Attorney Cowan did not respond to two letters 
from the Board requesting information concerning this matter, but 
he subsequently did respond to questions from the district 
committee to which the matter was referred for investigation.   
 
Also in March, 1993, while accompanying people posting bail 
for a person being held in Douglas county jail, Attorney Cowan 
learned that another person with whom he was acquainted was being 
held.  Attorney Cowan thereupon asked the jailer where his 
"client" was, demanding to talk to him immediately.  When asked 
whether his license to practice law had been reinstated following 
its earlier suspension, Attorney Cowan told the jailer that it had 
been.  When the Board received a grievance from the sheriff 
regarding this incident, it sent two letters to Attorney Cowan 
requesting a response, but he did not respond, although he 
ultimately answered questions put to him by the district 
committee.   
A third matter concerned Attorney Cowan's failure 
 
No. 95-0641-D 
 
 
 
4 
to respond to requests by a former divorce client in early 1992 to 
return the abstract of title for property she had been awarded in 
that 
action, 
which 
she 
intended 
to 
sell. 
 
During 
its 
investigation, the district committee learned that the purchaser 
of the property had withheld $250 from the purchase practice 
because of the lack of a proper abstract of title.  Attorney Cowan 
did not respond to two letters from the Board regarding the 
client's grievance, but he ultimately produced the client's file, 
in which the abstract was located.  The abstract was returned to 
the client in early February, 1993.   
 
On the basis of the foregoing facts, the referee concluded as 
follows.  Attorney Cowan violated SCR 22.26(2)1 by continuing to 
engage in the practice of law while his license to do so was under 
suspension by order of the court; his refusal to return client 
property upon request violated SCR 20:1.16(d);2 his refusal to 
                     
     1  SCR 22.26 provides, in pertinent part:  Activities on 
revocation or suspension of license.   
 
. . . 
 
(2)  A suspended or disbarred attorney may not engage in the 
practice of law or in any law work activity customarily done by 
law students, law clerks or other paralegal personnel, except that 
he or she may engage in law related work for a commercial employer 
not itself engaged in the practice of law.   
     2  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 
 
No. 95-0641-D 
 
 
 
5 
respond to requests from the Board for information regarding 
grievances concerning his conduct violated SCR 21.03(4)3 and 
22.07(2).4   
 
In recommending a six-month license suspension as discipline 
for that misconduct, the referee noted several aggravating 
factors, 
including 
Attorney 
Cowan's 
prior 
discipline, 
his 
continued pattern of refusing to respond to the Board seeking 
information during its investigation into allegations of his 
misconduct, and his failure to participate timely in the instant 
disciplinary proceeding.  The referee considered as mitigating 
factors that there was no evidence of moral turpitude or 
dishonesty in respect to the misconduct established in this 
proceeding or that any client was injured by it.   
(..continued) 
other law.   
     3  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.   
     4  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 administrator or committee may make a further 
investigation before making a recommendation to the board.   
 
No. 95-0641-D 
 
 
 
6 
 
We adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of 
law and determine that the recommended discipline should be 
imposed for Attorney Cowan's professional misconduct.   
 
IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Patrick T. Cowan 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of six 
months, effective the date of this order.     
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this 
order Patrick T. Cowan 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 Patrick T. Cowan to practice law in Wisconsin shall 
remain suspended until further order of the court.   
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Patrick T. Cowan comply with the 
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose 
license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended.   
 
No. 95-0641-D 
 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
                                                              
 
Case No.: 
 
95-0641-D 
                                                              
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary  
 
 
 
Proceedings Against 
 
 
 
Patrick T. Cowen, 
 
 
 
Attorney at Law. 
 
 
 
________________________________________ 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST COWEN 
 
                                                              
 
Opinion Filed:  
December 21, 1995 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
                                                              
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
                                                              
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating: 
 
                                                              
 
ATTORNEYS: