Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Robert J. Urban

Citation: 2002 WI 63

Docket Number: 2002AP000877-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2002-06-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
2002 WI 63 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
02-0877-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Robert J. Urban, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
Complainant, 
 
v. 
Robert J. Urban,  
 
Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST URBAN 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 20, 2002   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2002 WI 63 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  02-0877-D  
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Robert J. Urban, Attorney at  
Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Robert J. Urban,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 20, 2002 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.    
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the stipulation filed by 
Attorney Robert J. Urban and the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
No. 
02-0877-D   
 
2 
 
(OLR)1 
incorporating 
by 
reference 
the 
allegations 
of 
a 
disciplinary complaint filed against Attorney Urban by OLR.  The 
parties ask this court to adopt the factual findings and 
conclusions of law of misconduct as recited in that complaint 
and impose a 15-month suspension of Attorney Urban's license to 
practice law in this state.  
¶2 
The acts of misconduct as charged in the OLR complaint 
and now admitted by Attorney Urban in the stipulation, involve 
handling of an estate after a malpractice claim on behalf of the 
estate's beneficiary arose against him.  The OLR complaint also 
charged Urban with knowingly making misrepresentations to the 
probate court and misleading the court as to the status of tax 
refund negotiations on behalf of an estate; failing to withdraw 
from the representation of an estate when the conflict of 
interest arose; failing to include the estate in a list provided 
to the OLR in connection with a previously imposed disciplinary 
order directing OLR to monitor Attorney Urban's compliance with 
certain conditions; failing to respond to OLR's investigative 
inquiry in connection with another estate; and, failing to 
                                                 
1 Effective 
October 
1, 
2000, 
Wisconsin's 
attorney 
disciplinary process underwent a substantial restructuring.  The 
name of the body responsible for investigating and prosecuting 
cases involving attorney misconduct was changed to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and the supreme court rules applicable 
to the lawyer regulation system were also revised.  Although 
some of the conduct giving rise to this case occurred prior to 
October 1, 2000, the OLR was the investigative body that filed 
this disciplinary complaint.  References to supreme court rules 
in this opinion will be to those currently in effect unless 
specifically noted. 
No. 
02-0877-D   
 
3 
 
disclose to OLR that he was handling estate assets in two 
different probate cases.  
¶3 
We approve the stipulation and determine that the 
seriousness 
of 
Attorney 
Urban's 
misconduct 
warrants 
the 
suspension of his license to practice law for 15 months.  We 
further condition any future reinstatement of his license upon 
him demonstrating that he has completed his payment obligations 
under a settlement agreement he has entered into with the 
beneficiary in one of the estates. 
¶4 
Attorney Urban was licensed to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1958 and practices in Milwaukee.  He has previously 
been disciplined for misconduct: In 1984 he was publicly 
reprimanded for his lack of diligence in the probate of an 
estate and his failure to respond to the Board of Attorneys 
Professional Responsibility (BAPR), OLR's predecessor, during 
its investigation.  Disciplinary Proceedings Against Urban, 119 
Wis. 2d 889, 350 N.W.2d 138 (1984).  In 1987 BAPR privately 
reprimanded him, with his consent, for his failure to forward 
files to a client despite numerous requests for them, failure to 
notify the client of the receipt of funds belonging to the 
client, and failure to respond promptly to BAPR's inquiries into 
the matter.  Then, effective April 27, 1998, this court 
suspended Urban's license for six months for his misconduct 
consisting of his failure to act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness in handling four probate estates, his numerous 
misrepresentations to the probate court of the causes for his 
continued failure to complete one of those estates in a timely 
No. 
02-0877-D   
 
4 
 
fashion, and his failure to cooperate with BAPR during its 
investigation of his conduct.  In addition to the six-month 
suspension, this court ordered that following reinstatement of 
his license, Urban must periodically for two years file with 
BAPR a list of probate matters that he had pending in any court, 
along with pertinent information concerning those matters.  
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Urban, 216 Wis. 2d 462, 574 
N.W.2d 651 (1998).   
¶5 
One of the four probate matters involved in that 1998 
disciplinary suspension was the Estate of Carolyn Flicek; that 
estate is again one of the focuses of the current disciplinary 
complaint 
against 
Urban. 
 
Urban 
was 
appointed 
personal 
representative of that estate on March 8, 1990, and has also 
served as attorney of record for that estate.  The sole heir of 
the Flicek Estate is the deceased's daughter, Carol Ann 
Stratmeyer (Stratmeyer). 
¶6 
When BAPR completed its 1996 investigation concerning 
Urban's misconduct in the Flicek Estate, that estate remained 
open; it was still open when this court issued its 1998 
disciplinary order suspending Urban's license for six months.  
Urban's misconduct regarding the Flicek matter that led to the 
six-month suspension of his license consisted of his failure to 
timely file the inventory until approximately five months after 
the statutory deadline even though he had the necessary 
documentations to file it in a timely manner; in addition, on 11 
occasions between December 13, 1990, and February 8, 1996, he 
misrepresented to the probate court that there were ongoing 
No. 
02-0877-D   
 
5 
 
disputes with the federal and state taxing authorities and, on 
one occasion, he told the court that there was a tax refund 
pending despite the fact that Urban had never communicated with 
the Wisconsin Department of Revenue regarding the Flicek Estate. 
¶7 
In the instant disciplinary complaint filed by OLR 
against Urban it is alleged that after Urban's license to 
practice law was reinstated following his six-month suspension, 
this court conditioned that reinstatement upon his continuing 
compliance with certain requirements including: that every 90 
days for a period of two years he must file with BAPR (now OLR) 
a list of all probate matters he had pending in any court, 
listing also the dates on which they were opened and listing all 
probate matters closed during the preceding 90-day period; he 
was also required to file a satisfactory explanation as to why 
any estate remained open for more than 18 months, and an 
estimate of when that estate would be closed; in addition, he 
was required to submit to BAPR on a quarterly basis, his trust 
account records. 
¶8 
The OLR's current complaint, to which Urban has 
stipulated, alleges that on September 28, 1990, Urban remitted a 
federal estate tax tender of $210,000 to the Internal Revenue 
Service on behalf of the Flicek Estate.  Over six years later, 
on November 1, 1996, Urban filed a federal estate tax return 
indicating that a refund of $84,007.94 was owed to the estate.  
However, when the IRS issued the closing letter for the Flicek 
Estate on June 3, 1997, that letter reflected that the federal 
estate tax totaled only $109,767.06 which was $100,232.94 less 
No. 
02-0877-D   
 
6 
 
than the $210,000 Urban had tendered on behalf of the estate in 
September 1990.  Urban did not inquire about a refund after he 
received the IRS estate closing letter. 
¶9 
During the subsequent ten months between June 1997 and 
April 1998, while Urban continued as the attorney for the Flicek 
Estate, he did not seek a refund of the overpayment of the 
federal estate tax.  After his license was suspended for six 
months on April 27, 1998, Urban continued to act as personal 
representative for the Flicek Estate appearing at order to show 
cause hearings regarding that estate until October 8, 1998, when 
a stipulation and order was filed substituting Attorney Gregory 
Hays for Urban as the attorney of record for the Flicek Estate.   
¶10 Attorney Hays wrote to the IRS that Urban, as personal 
representative of the estate, had retained him regarding the 
$84,007.94 refund Urban claimed was owed to the estate.  The IRS 
responded that no refund could now be made because the tax code 
limits refunds to those amounts paid within three years 
preceding a refund request.  The IRS noted that the estate tax 
return by Urban for the Flicek Estate in November of 1996 
requested a tax refund; however, because the tax for that estate 
had been tendered to and received by the IRS in 1990——over six 
years before the claim for a refund was made——the IRS wrote that 
no refund could now be made in either the $84,007.94 amount 
Urban first requested, or for $100,232.94, which was the amount 
identified as the overpayment in the IRS's estate tax closing 
letter in June 1997.  
No. 
02-0877-D   
 
7 
 
¶11 The current OLR complaint also alleges, and Urban has 
now stipulated, that as a result of his handling of the federal 
estate taxes for the Flicek Estate, the estate lost a tax refund 
in either the amount of $84,007.94 or $100,232.94. 
¶12 Urban subsequently retained another attorney to assist 
him in obtaining the estate tax refund from the IRS for the 
Flicek Estate; however, that attorney, after investigation, 
advised Urban that it was not likely that a claim for a refund 
could be successfully pursued.   
¶13 The OLR complaint alleges, and Urban now stipulates, 
that for the next 15 months until November of 2001, Urban took 
no steps to pursue the refund nor did he disclose to Ms. 
Stratmeyer, the Flicek Estate's sole heir, or the probate court, 
that the IRS had refused to make a refund.  
¶14 The OLR complaint alleges, and Urban now stipulates, 
that in November of 2001, OLR staff asked Urban if he had 
notified Ms. Stratmeyer of the estate's potential malpractice 
claim against Urban for his mishandling of the estate tax refund 
matter.  Urban then contacted Ms. Stratmeyer and told her for 
the first time that there was a potential malpractice claim 
against him for his handling of the tax refund matter for the 
estate.  Urban also told Ms. Stratmeyer that she could consult 
another attorney about the issue but that he preferred to 
resolve the issue between them and that to do so he would give 
her a promissory note.  Urban did not tell Ms. Stratmeyer that 
he had no malpractice insurance coverage. 
No. 
02-0877-D   
 
8 
 
¶15 The OLR complaint also alleges, and Urban stipulates, 
that during that same period, Urban attended various hearings in 
the probate court regarding the Flicek Estate and repeatedly 
advised the court: that the tax refund claim was the only asset 
that needed to be resolved in the estate; that he had obtained 
counsel to process the refund claim; and, that he believed a 
settlement with the IRS had been worked out and a final receipt 
and judgment in the estate would be forthcoming shortly.  Urban 
repeated similar statements to the probate court over the next 
several months culminating in the probate court on November 28, 
2001, issuing an order requiring Urban to show cause why he 
should not be removed as a personal representative of the Flicek 
Estate. 
 
Ultimately, 
Urban 
was 
not 
removed 
as 
personal 
representative but he was ordered to produce a supplemental 
final account for the estate updating the information contained 
in the final account he had filed on behalf of the estate in 
1992.  
¶16 While these matters were developing, in early 2000, 
BAPR staff sent Urban a letter reminding him that he was 
required to comply with the various conditions that had been 
imposed when the court reinstated his license to practice law 
after the six-month suspension.  As noted, those conditions 
required Urban to periodically file information with BAPR 
including a list of all probate matters pending, the dates those 
matters were opened and all matters that had been closed, and an 
explanation as to why any estate Urban was handling had remained 
open for more than 18 months.   
No. 
02-0877-D   
 
9 
 
¶17 In February 2000 Urban responded to the letter from 
BAPR staff asserting that since his reinstatement in April 1999 
he had only opened one probate matter, the Estate of Orville 
Stewart.  In his letter to BAPR Urban did not disclose that he 
was still handling the Flicek Estate; consequently, Urban 
provided no explanation to BAPR regarding why the Flicek Estate 
had remained open for approximately ten years by that point.  
¶18 The OLR complaint alleges, and Urban now stipulates, 
that in the six reports he submitted to BAPR/OLR between 
February 2000 and August 2001 he never disclosed that he was 
still handling the Flicek Estate and that it remained open. 
¶19 On August 31, 2001, OLR staff discovered that Urban 
remained the attorney of record in the Flicek Estate.  The OLR 
staff then contacted Urban asking for an explanation as to why 
he had not disclosed to OLR that he was still handling the 
Flicek Estate; he was also asked to provide a detailed report on 
the current status of that estate.  The OLR also requested that 
Urban explain why he had not disclosed to the OLR that in 
December 2000 the probate court had issued an order requiring 
him to show cause relating to the Stewart Estate he was then 
handling. 
¶20 Urban responded that he did not believe the reporting 
requirement 
imposed 
on 
him 
as 
a 
condition 
of 
license 
reinstatement applied to the Flicek Estate because he thought 
the condition was prospective only.  Although he acknowledged 
that the probate court had issued an order to show cause in the 
Stewart Estate in December 2000 Urban did not explain why he had 
No. 
02-0877-D   
 
10 
 
not disclosed that information to BAPR/OLR in any of the six 
reports he had filed. 
¶21 The OLR complaint further alleges, and Urban now 
stipulates, that in his quarterly reports to BAPR/OLR submitted 
to comply with the conditions imposed for reinstatement, Urban 
had asserted that he was not handling funds relating to probate 
matters and that any funds he had received had been deposited 
into estate accounts and handled by the respective personal 
representatives directly.  Urban did not report that as the 
personal representative in both the Flicek and Stewart Estates, 
he controlled the respective checking accounts for those 
estates. 
¶22 The OLR complaint asserts six specific professional 
misconduct counts against Urban including: 
COUNT ONE 
By representing the Flicek Estate while the 
estate had a potential malpractice claim 
against him, Urban represented a client when 
that representation was materially limited 
by his responsibilities to another client or 
a third person, or by his own interests, in 
violation of SCR 20:1.7(b). 
COUNT TWO 
By failing to withdraw as the attorney for 
the 
Flicek estate 
after 
a 
conflict 
of 
interest arose, Urban failed to withdraw 
from 
representation 
of 
a 
client 
in 
a 
situation where the continued representation 
resulted in a continuing violation of the 
Rules of Professional Conduct, in violation 
of SCR 20:1.16(a)(1). 
COUNT THREE 
By misrepresenting to the probate court on 
multiple occasions that he was expecting a 
No. 
02-0877-D   
 
11 
 
tax refund from the IRS, and by repeatedly 
misleading the court regarding the status of 
negotiations with the IRS, Urban knowingly 
made false statements of fact to a tribunal, 
in violation of SCR 20:3.3(b), and Urban 
engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit 
or 
misrepresentation, 
in 
violation of SCR 20:8.4(c). 
COUNT FOUR 
By failing to list the Estate of Carolyn 
Flicek as a probate matter he was handling 
in response to BAPR's request for a "list of 
all probate matters that [he had] pending in 
any court," Urban failed to disclose a fact 
necessary to correct a misrepresentation 
known by Urban to have arisen in the matter, 
or knowingly failed to respond to a lawful 
demand for information from a disciplinary 
authority, in violation of SCR 20:8.1(b), 
and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit 
or 
misrepresentation, 
in 
violation of SCR 20:8.4(c). 
COUNT FIVE 
By failing to respond to OLR's inquiry as to 
whether an order to show cause had been 
issued in the Stewart Estate, Urban failed 
to disclose the fact necessary to correct 
misapprehension 
known 
by 
Urban 
to 
have 
arisen in the matter, or knowingly failed to 
respond to a lawful demand for information 
from a disciplinary authority, in violation 
of SCR 20:8.1(b), and engaged in conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit 
or 
misrepresentation 
in 
violation 
of 
SCR 
20:8.4(c).  
COUNT SIX 
By advising BAPR/OLR, while he was subject 
to its supervision, that estate funds were 
being 
handled 
by 
the 
personal 
representatives of the estate that he was 
probating, yet failing to disclose that he 
was the personal representative for those 
two estates, Urban failed to disclose a fact 
necessary to correct a misapprehension known 
by Urban to have arisen in the matter, or 
knowingly failed to respond to a lawful 
demand for information from a disciplinary 
authority, in violation of SCR 20:8.1(b), 
No. 
02-0877-D   
 
12 
 
and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit 
or 
misrepresentation 
in 
violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).  
¶23 The stipulation between Attorney Urban and OLR reports 
that Urban's misconduct has been somewhat mitigated in that the 
Flicek Estate's claim for the tax refund was assigned to the 
sole heir, Ms. Stratmeyer, who then retained independent 
counsel.  That counsel has verified that Ms. Stratmeyer's claim 
has been satisfied pursuant to a settlement agreement between 
Urban and Ms. Stratmeyer under which Attorney Urban made an 
$88,000 payment to Ms. Stratmeyer in February of 2002 and has 
given her a $12,000 personal promissory note to be paid by him 
by December 31, 2003.  
¶24 We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law 
set forth in the parties' stipulation.  Attorney Urban has 
engaged in serious misconduct warranting suspension of his 
license to practice law.  We believe that Attorney Urban's 
pattern of misconduct relating to probate matters, especially 
his pattern of continued misrepresentations to the probate court 
in the Flicek Estate even though he had previously been 
disciplined for making similar misrepresentations to the probate 
court regarding the very same estate, warrants a substantial 
period of suspension of his license to practice law in this 
state.  Accordingly, 
¶25 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Robert J. Urban to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for 15 months effective 
July 25, 2002. 
No. 
02-0877-D   
 
13 
 
¶26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Robert J. Urban pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, provided that in the 
event the costs are not paid within the time specified and 
absent a showing to this court in writing of his inability to 
pay the costs within that time, the license of Robert J. Urban 
to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until 
further order of this court. 
¶27 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
any 
subsequent 
reinstatement of Robert J. Urban's license to practice law in 
this state is conditioned upon a showing that he has complied 
with 
and 
completed 
his 
obligations 
under 
the 
settlement 
agreement he has reached with the heir in the Flicek Estate. 
¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Robert J. Urban 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. 
02-0877-D   
 
 
 
1