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

Citation: 2005 WI 3

Docket Number: 2003AP002118-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2005-01-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
2005 WI 3 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
03-2118-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: 
January 19, 2005   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: BUTLER, J., did not participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2005 WI 3 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  03-2118-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 
 
JAN 19, 2005 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding.    Attorney's license 
suspended. 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the referee's report and 
recommendation that Attorney Seth P. Hartigan's license to 
practice law in this state be suspended for six months for his 
professional misconduct as alleged in the complaint filed by the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) in this court on August 11, 
2003.  That complaint alleged that Hartigan, who was admitted to 
practice law in January 1998 and who had no prior disciplinary 
No. 
03-2118-D   
 
2 
 
history, had committed six counts of professional misconduct 
involving two separate client matters.   
¶2 
Attorney Michael Ash, appointed to act as referee in 
this matter, scheduled a hearing for August 16, 2004.  Hartigan, 
however, notified the referee on August 6, 2004, that because of 
his new employment, he would not be able to attend the scheduled 
hearing and contest the allegations against him.   
¶3 
At the hearing, in Hartigan's absence, the OLR 
presented 
testimony 
from 
several 
witnesses 
and 
evidence 
supporting all six of the misconduct allegations set out in its 
complaint.  Referee Ash then granted OLR's motion for default 
based on Hartigan's failure to appear at that public hearing.  
The referee has now filed his report, findings of fact, 
conclusions and his recommendation that Hartigan's license to 
practice law in this state be suspended for six months for his 
six counts of professional misconduct.  The referee has also 
recommended that Hartigan be required to pay the cost of these 
proceedings now totaling $8035.53.   
¶4 
No appeal has been filed by either Hartigan or the 
OLR.   
¶5 
In summary, Hartigan's misconduct, as alleged in the 
OLR complaint, involved, among other things, fraud upon the law 
firm where he worked.  It was alleged that Hartigan had accepted 
a laptop computer worth $2300 as payment for his legal services 
in representing his client, R.H., who was facing two OWI 
charges.  After Hartigan accepted the laptop computer from R.H., 
he retained it for his own personal use.  Hartigan thereafter 
No. 
03-2118-D   
 
3 
 
failed to appear on behalf of R.H., failed to provide adequate 
notice that he was withdrawing as R.H.'s counsel, and failed to 
inform R.H. of the status of his request for an adjournment.  In 
addition, Hartigan filed a motion to withdraw as R.H.'s counsel 
and misrepresented to the circuit court that R.H. had refused to 
abide by their written fee agreement.  Hartigan also failed to 
notify R.H. that he had to appear for a scheduled trial date, 
and when R.H. failed to appear on that date, a bench warrant was 
issued and he was arrested.   
¶6 
It was also alleged that after R.H. filed a grievance 
with OLR, Hartigan made various misrepresentations to OLR staff 
investigating the grievance including an assertion that his law 
firm knew he had accepted the laptop computer as a fee for legal 
services.  Hartigan also submitted a misleading document to OLR 
that he had drafted for a colleague's signature; that document 
reported that Hartigan had donated the computer to a public 
service hotline when, in fact, he had not done so.   
¶7 
That course of conduct involving client R.H. led to 
the first four counts of misconduct as alleged in OLR's 
complaint.   
¶8 
With respect to the second client matter, the OLR 
complaint alleged that Hartigan had been retained to represent 
D.B. who was, at that time, incarcerated at Taycheedah.  D.B.'s 
father paid Hartigan an initial retainer of $750 for his 
assistance at her upcoming parole hearing.  Hartigan wrote to 
D.B. arranging to meet with her at the prison on March 7, 2002 
but he failed to do so, and he did not call her or anyone at the 
No. 
03-2118-D   
 
4 
 
prison to inform D.B. that he would not be there.  In a 
subsequent telephone conversation with D.B., Hartigan discussed 
two pro se matters she had filed, but he did not discuss with 
D.B. her upcoming parole hearing.  Hartigan told D.B. that he 
would get back to her at a later date to discuss and prepare for 
that hearing, but did not do so.   
¶9 
During his telephone conversation with D.B., Hartigan 
asked her to send him her paperwork on the two pro se matters 
she had filed; he told D.B. that he would look at the documents, 
copy them, and then return them to her as soon as possible.  
D.B. mailed the documents to Hartigan but he did not send them 
back as he had promised. 
¶10 Subsequently, Hartigan agreed to meet with D.B. three 
days before her scheduled parole hearing; however, he failed to 
appear at that meeting and did not call D.B. to inform her that 
he would not appear on her behalf at the parole hearing.  It was 
also alleged that Hartigan did not otherwise contact D.B. or do 
anything to assist or help her prepare for her parole hearing; 
as a result, D.B. attended the parole hearing by herself without 
counsel.  D.B. was not granted parole and she served the 
remainder of her sentence until her mandatory release date.   
¶11 That course of conduct involving client D.B. led to 
the remaining two counts of misconduct alleged by the OLR in its 
complaint.   
¶12 After hearing testimony and receiving evidence at the 
hearing in this matter, the referee reached the following 
conclusions of law:   
No. 
03-2118-D   
 
5 
 
REGARDING CLIENT R.H. 
• ¶13 By accepting a laptop computer as payment for 
legal fees and by retaining it and using it solely for 
his own benefit, without disclosure to, the knowledge 
of, consent of, or permission from, his employer, 
Hartigan engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit, 
and 
misrepresentation 
and 
thereby 
violated SCR 20:8.4(c).1 
• ¶14 By falsely informing the OLR in the course of its 
investigation that his employer was aware that he had 
accepted a laptop computer from R.H. as payment for 
legal services, Hartigan made a misrepresentation in a 
disclosure 
to 
the 
OLR 
in 
the 
course 
of 
its 
investigation and thereby violated SCR 22.03(6).2 
• ¶15 By failing to inform or send a copy of his motion 
to withdraw to his client R.H., and by failing to 
timely inform R.H. of the status of his request for an 
adjournment of a scheduled court hearing, Hartigan 
failed 
to 
take 
steps 
to 
the 
extent 
reasonably 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides:  "(c) engage in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation."   
2 SCR 22.03(6) provides:  "(6)  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." 
 
No. 
03-2118-D   
 
6 
 
practicable to protect his client's interest upon 
termination of his representation and thereby violated 
SCR 20:1.16(d).3   
• ¶16 By representing to the court in his motion to 
withdraw and papers accompanying it, that his client, 
R.H., had failed to abide by the terms of a written 
fee agreement when Hartigan knew this to be false, 
Hartigan knowingly made a false statement of fact to a 
tribunal and thereby violated SCR 20:3.3(a)(1).4   
REGARDING CLIENT D.B. 
• ¶17 By failing to meet with his client, D.B., on 
March 7, 2002, or at any other time to advise her on, 
and prepare her for, her parole hearing, and by 
failing to consult with her promptly about his 
willingness to represent her in the pro se cases, 
Hartigan failed to explain a matter to his client to 
the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client 
                                                 
3 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides:  "(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." 
4 SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) provides:  "(a) A lawyer shall not 
knowingly: (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a 
tribunal."   
No. 
03-2118-D   
 
7 
 
to 
make 
informed 
decisions 
regarding 
her 
representation and thereby violated SCR 20:1.4(b).5 
• ¶18 By failing to return D.B.'s papers to her for 
more than two months despite multiple requests that he 
do so, Hartigan failed to comply promptly with his 
client's 
reasonable 
requests 
for 
information 
and 
thereby violated SCR 20:1.4(a).6 
¶19 After determining that Hartigan had committed the six 
counts of misconduct as alleged in the OLR complaint, the 
referee recommended that Hartigan's license to practice law in 
this state be suspended for a period of six months as a sanction 
for this course of serious misconduct.  According to the 
referee, a six-month suspension would be comparable to the level 
of sanctions imposed in prior disciplinary cases such as 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Horvath, 212 Wis. 2d 678, 568 
N.W.2d 776 (1997); Disciplinary Proceedings Against Usow, 214 
Wis. 2d 596, 571 N.W.2d 162 (1997); Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Landau, 147 Wis. 2d 802, 434 N.W.2d 93 (1989); and 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against O'Neill, 117 Wis. 2d 347, 343 
N.W.2d 807 (1984).  The respondents in all those prior cases had 
received six-month suspensions for similar types of misconduct 
                                                 
5 SCR 20:1.4(b) provides:  "(b) A lawyer shall explain a 
matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client 
to make informed decisions regarding the representation." 
6 SCR 20:1.4(a) provides:  "(a) A lawyer shall keep a client 
reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly 
comply with reasonable requests for information." 
No. 
03-2118-D   
 
8 
 
involving 
misrepresentation, 
misappropriation, 
failure 
to 
cooperate 
with 
OLR's 
investigation, 
and 
client 
neglect.  
Concluding that a similar six-month suspension was appropriate 
in this case, Referee Ash explained:   
As the evidence indicates, Hartigan breached 
duties to just about everyone:  his law 
firm, a colleague at his law firm, his 
clients, 
tribunals 
before 
which 
he 
was 
appearing, and the OLR.  Moreover, he more 
than once attempted to lie his way out of 
troublesome situations.  At least one of his 
clients [R.H.] was arrested at his home and 
jailed, probably by reason of Hartigan's 
false statements to a court and callous 
indifference to the fate of R.H. (whom he 
had virtually abandoned).  A second [D.B.]--
imprisoned and desperate for legal services 
for which her father had paid--got none and 
went for weeks without legal papers she 
deemed critical and which she had trustfully 
placed in Hartigan's hands.  
Furthermore, 
during 
the 
investigative 
portion 
of 
the 
disciplinary 
process, 
Hartigan intentionally made false statements 
and submitted false and misleading evidence 
to the OLR's investigators.  Finally, there 
is nothing in the record that suggests 
remorse on the part of Hartigan or even any 
understanding 
or 
acknowledgment 
of 
the 
wrongful nature of his conduct.  Referee's 
Report at 15-16. 
¶20 After our review of the record, we adopt the referee's 
findings of fact and conclusions of law and accept the referee's 
recommendation that Hartigan's license to practice law in this 
state be suspended for a period of six months as a sanction for 
his numerous acts of misconduct.  The lawyer regulation system 
in this state has been established to, among other things, 
"protect the public from misconduct by persons practicing law in 
Wisconsin."  See Preamble to SCR Chapter 21.  We view Hartigan's 
No. 
03-2118-D   
 
9 
 
professional misconduct as serious infractions of the rules 
governing lawyers' professional behavior and responsibilities.  
We also agree that Hartigan shall pay the costs associated with 
this disciplinary proceeding now totaling $8035.53.   
¶21 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Seth B. 
Hartigan to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period 
of six months, effective the date of this order.   
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Seth B. Hartigan 
shall comply, if he has not already done so, with the 
requirements of SCR 22.26 pertaining to activities following 
suspension.   
¶23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Attorney Seth B. Hartigan pay the OLR the cost of 
this proceeding.  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 Attorney Seth 
B. Hartigan to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended 
until further order of this court.   
¶24 LOUIS B. BUTLER, J., did not participate.   
 
No. 
03-2118-D   
 
 
 
1