Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Michael C. Trudgeon

Citation: 2009 WI 96

Docket Number: 2008AP002558-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2009-10-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
2009 WI 96 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2008AP2558-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Michael C. Trudgeon, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Michael C. Trudgeon, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST TRUDGEON 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 20, 2009   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2009 WI 96
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2008AP2558-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Michael C. Trudgeon, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Michael C. Trudgeon, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
OCT 20, 2009 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded. 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report and recommendation 
of the referee, Michael F. Dubis, that Attorney Michael C. 
Trudgeon receive a public reprimand and bear the costs of this 
proceeding.  The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed an 
eight-count 
complaint 
against 
Attorney 
Trudgeon 
alleging 
professional misconduct in two client matters.  Attorney 
Trudgeon did not file an answer.   
No. 
2008AP2558-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
Because no appeal has been filed, we review the 
referee's report and recommendation pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).1  
We approve and adopt the referee's findings of fact and 
conclusions 
of 
law. 
 
We 
agree 
that 
Attorney 
Trudgeon's 
professional misconduct warrants a public reprimand.  In 
addition, we find it appropriate Attorney Trudgeon pay the costs 
of this disciplinary proceeding. 
¶3 
Attorney Trudgeon was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 2003 and has practiced in Beloit.  On May 27, 2008, 
Attorney Trudgeon's license to practice law was suspended for 
failing to satisfy continuing legal education requirements.  In 
July 2008 Attorney Trudgeon's license was temporarily suspended 
for failure to cooperate in four grievance investigations.  His 
license remains suspended.  
 
I.  THE S.C. CLIENT MATTER 
(COUNTS 1 THROUGH 4) 
¶4 
The disciplinary complaint charges four counts of 
misconduct involving Attorney Trudgeon's representation of S.C. 
in a foreclosure action.  In June 2006 S.C. retained Attorney 
Trudgeon to defend the foreclosure proceeding filed by S.C.'s 
condominium association.  Although S.C. paid Attorney Trudgeon a 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) states: 
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 
findings; 
and 
determine 
and 
impose 
appropriate 
discipline.  The court, on its own motion, may order 
the parties to file briefs in the matter. 
No. 
2008AP2558-D   
 
3 
 
$500 fee, he failed to discuss with her the rate and basis of 
his fee.   
¶5 
Attorney 
Trudgeon 
contacted 
opposing 
counsel 
and 
advised he was representing S.C.  Although he filed a notice of 
retainer, he did not file an answer to the foreclosure 
complaint.  When the association moved for a default judgment, 
Attorney Trudgeon did not respond.   
¶6 
Before the hearing on the default judgment motion took 
place, however, S.C. made inconsistent statements whether she 
wanted Attorney Trudgeon to continue representing her.  Although 
Attorney 
Trudgeon 
believed 
his 
representation 
had 
been 
terminated, S.C. believed he would continue to represent her.  
Attorney Trudgeon did not clarify whether S.C. wanted him to 
continue representing her; he did not file a motion to withdraw 
as counsel and failed to advise her, the court, and the 
association's attorney he was no longer representing S.C.  When 
Attorney Trudgeon failed to appear at the motion hearing, a 
default foreclosure judgment was entered against S.C.   
¶7 
Subsequently, Attorney Trudgeon wrote S.C. advising 
her to pursue a discrimination and harassment action against the 
association, indicating the suit would delay attempts to 
foreclose.  He advised S.C. her retainer had been exhausted and 
another $1,500 was required for him to continue representing 
her.  S.C. retained another attorney to handle the foreclosure 
action and the matter proceeded to a sheriff's sale, which was 
confirmed.  Attorney Trudgeon later admitted he was never 
certain whether the injunction he had planned to seek to prevent 
No. 
2008AP2558-D   
 
4 
 
the foreclosure would be issued, and he never discussed his 
uncertainty with S.C.   
¶8 
The 
referee 
concluded 
that 
Attorney 
Trudgeon's 
representation of S.C. supported four counts of professional 
misconduct: 
Count One:  By failing to file a motion to withdraw as 
counsel after he considered his representation of S.C. to 
have 
terminated, 
Attorney 
Trudgeon 
violated 
SCR 
20:1.16(a)(3).2 
Count Two:  By failing to appear at the default motion 
hearing, Attorney Trudgeon violated SCR 20:1.3.3 
Count Three:  By failing to adequately explain the 
rate and basis of his fee before or within a reasonable 
time after commencing the representation, Attorney Trudgeon 
violated former SCR 20:1.5(b).4 
Count Four:  By advising S.C., "[The] lawsuit will 
delay any attempts on foreclosing on your property;" by 
failing to explain he would not file an answer to the 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:1.16(a)(3) provides, in pertinent part, "Except as 
stated in par. (c), a lawyer shall not represent a client or, 
where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the 
representation 
of 
a 
client 
if: . . . (3) the 
lawyer 
is 
discharged." 
3 SCR 20:1.3 states, "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
4 Former SCR 20:1.5(b) (effective through June 30, 2007) 
provided, "When the lawyer has not regularly represented the 
client, the basis or rate of the fee shall be communicated to 
the client, preferably in writing, before or within a reasonable 
time after commencing the representation." 
No. 
2008AP2558-D   
 
5 
 
default judgment motion and not appear at the motion 
hearing; by failing to advise of the default judgment or 
the status of the foreclosure action; and by failing to 
adequately communicate to S.C. he believed their attorney-
client relationship had been terminated, Attorney Trudgeon 
violated former SCR 20:1.4(b).5 
 
II.  THE C.S. AND C.C. CLIENT MATTER 
(COUNTS 5 THROUGH 8) 
¶9 
The next four counts arise from Attorney Trudgeon's 
representation of C.S. and C.C. in a lawsuit filed by a 
subcontractor involved in the construction of their home.  
Ultimately, the subcontractor obtained a default judgment 
against C.S. in the sum of $2,999.   
¶10 Attorney Trudgeon had agreed to handle the matter at a 
rate of $150 per hour with no written fee agreement.  C.S. and 
C.C. paid Attorney Trudgeon approximately $500 in fees.  C.S. 
was ordered to file an answer to the complaint no later than 
February 2, 2007.  The trial was scheduled for February 14, 
2007.  Attorney Trudgeon failed to file an answer on behalf of 
C.S., failed to provide his clients with a copy of the pretrial 
order, failed to inform his clients that C.S. had been ordered 
to file an answer, and failed to inform them he had not filed an 
answer.   
                                                 
5 Former SCR 20:1.4(b) (effective through June 30, 2007) 
provided that "[a] lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent 
reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed 
decisions regarding the representation." 
No. 
2008AP2558-D   
 
6 
 
¶11 Between January 31 and February 13, 2007, Attorney 
Trudgeon and C.C. had discussed a settlement proposal.  On 
February 14, 2007, Attorney Trudgeon and the plaintiff's 
attorney appeared in court without their clients and reviewed 
paperwork related to the case.  Trial was rescheduled for 
March 12, 2007.   
¶12 When C.C. e-mailed Attorney Trudgeon on February 14 
inquiring about the case, Attorney Trudgeon replied he had met 
with opposing counsel and would mail C.C. and C.S. materials for 
their review.  On February 15, 2007, Attorney Trudgeon wrote his 
clients advising of the March 12 hearing date but failed to 
inform them to appear on March 12 if the case did not settle.  
When his clients inquired whether they should appear on 
March 12, Attorney Trudgeon responded they should plan on going 
to work that day and, if they would need to appear, the matter 
could be rescheduled.   
¶13 On March 12, 2007, Attorney Trudgeon e-mailed C.C. 
that their settlement offer had been rejected and both C.S. and 
C.C. would have to appear at trial.  C.C. replied that they did 
not wish to make another settlement offer and directed Attorney 
Trudgeon to set a trial date.  Although Attorney Trudgeon had 
advised C.C. and C.S. they need not appear on March 12, he had 
failed to obtain opposing counsel's stipulation or court 
approval for a continuance.  At the March 12 trial, plaintiff's 
counsel objected to Attorney Trudgeon's continuance request and 
moved for default judgment against C.S.  The court granted the 
No. 
2008AP2558-D   
 
7 
 
plaintiff a default judgment against C.S. in the amount of 
$2,999, plus costs.   
¶14 Attorney Trudgeon did not timely inform his clients 
that a default judgment had been entered.  On March 12 C.S. and 
C.C. 
delivered 
a 
payment 
to 
Attorney 
Trudgeon's 
office.  
Attorney Trudgeon failed to inform them a hearing had been held 
that day and a default judgment had been entered.  He also 
failed to inform them of their appellate rights or that C.S. 
might be able to file a motion to reopen.  Additionally, he 
failed to research the procedure and time restrictions for C.S. 
to move to reopen or appeal the default judgment and failed to 
respond to C.C.'s subsequent e-mails.  
¶15 On March 28, 2007, the court sent a notice of entry of 
judgment to Attorney Trudgeon with an order requiring C.S. to 
provide 
financial 
disclosure 
information 
within 
15 
days.  
Attorney Trudgeon failed to forward the order to his clients 
within 15 days.  On April 4 and 10, 2007, C.C. e-mailed Attorney 
Trudgeon inquiring about the status of the case and whether he 
still represented them.  Attorney Trudgeon did not respond and 
failed to call or send paperwork to his clients as he said he 
would.   
¶16 During the first week of April 2007, C.C. went to 
Attorney Trudgeon's office.  Attorney Trudgeon told C.C. he 
would have "to get a court date set."  It was not until 
April 18, 2007, that Attorney Trudgeon advised his clients that 
a default judgment had been entered.  On April 19, 2007, C.C. 
spoke with court personnel who confirmed the default judgment 
No. 
2008AP2558-D   
 
8 
 
had been issued against C.S. on March 12, 2007.  The court 
personnel advised that if C.S. did not complete financial 
disclosure forms within 15 days, C.S. could be held in contempt 
of court and arrested.  Between March 13 and April 22, Attorney 
Trudgeon failed to respond to his clients' calls and e-mails and 
failed to meet with them except when C.C. made two unannounced 
office visits.  C.S. eventually filed a motion to reopen, which 
was denied.  
¶17 Referee 
Dubis 
determined 
Attorney 
Trudgeon's 
representation of C.S. and C.C. supported the following counts 
of professional misconduct:   
Count Five:  By failing to respond to reasonable 
requests for information; by failing to advise of the entry 
of the default judgment; and by failing to forward the 
order and financial disclosure forms to his clients, 
Attorney Trudgeon violated former SCR 20:1.4(a).6 
Count 
Six:  By assuming the trial scheduled for 
March 12, 2007, could be continued without confirming that 
assumption with the court or obtaining opposing counsel's 
agreement to a continuance; by failing to timely research 
the procedures and time limits to appeal or file a motion 
to reopen; by failing to prepare and file a written answer; 
and by failing to obtain opposing counsel's consent to file 
                                                 
6 Former SCR 20:1.4(a) (effective through June 30, 2007) 
provided that "[a] lawyer shall keep a client reasonably 
informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with 
reasonable requests for information."  
No. 
2008AP2558-D   
 
9 
 
the financial disclosure forms after the 15-day deadline, 
Attorney Trudgeon violated SCR 20:1.3. 
Count Seven:  By failing to advise his clients of the 
procedures to attempt to reopen the default judgment; 
failing to advise his clients of the consequences of 
failing to appear for trial; and failing to advise C.S. 
that he risked being found in contempt of court for failure 
to timely complete the financial disclosure forms, Attorney 
Trudgeon violated SCR 20:1.4(b). 
Count Eight:  By allowing his clients to misunderstand 
that the case had not yet resulted in a judgment, when a 
default judgment had been entered on March 12, 2007, and 
implying the court decided the case on the merits, Attorney 
Trudgeon violated SCR 20:8.4(c).7 
¶18 Based upon these violations, Referee Dubis recommends 
a public reprimand and the imposition of costs.  Attorney 
Trudgeon has not appealed the recommendation or objected to 
costs.  We affirm a referee's findings of fact unless they are 
clearly erroneous.  We review conclusions of law de novo.  In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Tully, 2005 WI 100, ¶25, 283 
Wis. 2d 124, 699 N.W.2d 882.  This court is free to impose 
whatever discipline it deems appropriate, regardless of the 
referee's 
recommendation.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. 
                                                 
7 SCR 20:8.4(c) states it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation." 
No. 
2008AP2558-D   
 
10 
 
¶19 Because they have not been shown to be clearly 
erroneous, we adopt the referee's findings.  We agree with the 
referee's 
conclusions 
and 
his 
recommendation 
regarding 
discipline.  We conclude that a pubic reprimand is sufficient to 
achieve the objectives of attorney discipline.  We order that 
Attorney Trudgeon shall bear the costs of this proceeding.8   
¶20 IT IS ORDERED that Michael C. Trudgeon is publicly 
reprimanded for professional misconduct. 
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Michael C. Trudgeon pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation all the costs of this proceeding.  If such costs are 
not paid within the time specified and absent a showing to the 
court of his inability to pay the costs within that time, the 
license of Michael C. Trudgeon to practice law in Wisconsin 
shall remain suspended until further order of this court. 
                                                 
8 The OLR seeks costs totaling $1,455.44 as of April 23, 
2009. 
No. 
2008AP2558-D   
 
 
 
1