Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Terrence J. Woods

Citation: 2011 WI 46

Docket Number: 2010AP001543-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2011-06-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
2011 WI 46 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2010AP1543-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Terrence J. Woods, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Terrence J. Woods, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST WOODS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 23, 2011   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
 
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
 
2011 WI 46
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2010AP1543-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Terrence J. Woods, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Terrence J. Woods, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 23, 2011 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of 
Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the referee's recommendation 
entered upon a stipulation filed by Attorney Terrence J. Woods 
and the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR).  The OLR filed a 
complaint 
alleging 
misconduct 
in 
failing 
to 
adhere 
to 
professional standards of diligence, communication with his 
client, and candor toward a tribunal.  Richard P. Mozinski was 
appointed referee.  The referee approved Attorney Woods' no 
contest plea to the allegations of the disciplinary complaint 
No. 
2010AP1543-D   
 
2 
 
and the parties' stipulation to a six-month suspension of 
Attorney Woods' license to practice law in Wisconsin, to be 
imposed retroactively (consecutive to a one-year suspension 
effective November 11, 2008).  The referee also recommended 
Attorney Woods be ordered to pay costs.  No appeal has been 
filed. 
¶2 
We 
agree 
the 
seriousness 
of 
Attorney 
Woods' 
misconduct, together with his disciplinary history, warrant a 
six-month suspension of his license to practice law.  However, 
we conclude the effective date of the suspension shall be the 
date of this decision, notwithstanding the fact that Attorney 
Woods' license has been under a continuous suspension since 2008 
and will remain suspended unless and until he successfully 
petitions 
for 
reinstatement. 
 
Generally, 
a 
retroactive 
suspension is disfavored in the absence of some compelling 
circumstance.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Boyd, 
2009 WI 59, 318 Wis. 2d 281, 767 N.W.2d 226.  We discern no 
compelling circumstance to impose a retroactive suspension in 
this instance.  Therefore, we approve and adopt the stipulation 
and the referee's recommendation in all respects except as to 
the effective date of the suspension.  We impose full costs. 
¶3 
Attorney Woods was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1965 and has practiced in Oconto Falls.  Attorney 
Woods has a lengthy disciplinary history; his license is 
currently suspended.  In In re the Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Woods, 2009 WI 7, 315 Wis. 2d 282, 759 N.W.2d 322, a 
one-year suspension was imposed to run consecutively to an 
No. 
2010AP1543-D   
 
3 
 
August 2008 90-day suspension.  In that case, Attorney Woods' 
misconduct included the failure to file timely and serve a 
personal injury lawsuit before the statute of limitations 
expired resulting in the dismissal with prejudice; failure to 
inform his client of a dismissal motion and hearing; failure to 
inform his client of the dismissal with prejudice; failure to 
explain to his client the effects of the dismissal; failure to 
respond to successor counsel's requests for the client's file; 
dishonesty in failing to inform his client of the dismissal of 
the lawsuit; and failure to file state income taxes.   
¶4 
Effective August 11, 2008, the court imposed a 90-day 
suspension for Attorney Woods' failure to file an amended 
bankruptcy plan and budget by the deadline, leading to the 
dismissal of a bankruptcy petition; failure to inform his client 
of the status and advise his client to comply with court orders; 
conflict of interest; and failure to return advanced fees.  In 
re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Woods, 2008 WI 79, 311 
Wis. 2d 213, 751 N.W.2d 840.   
¶5 
In 2003 Attorney Woods received a consensual public 
reprimand for failure to act with reasonable diligence; failure 
to keep a client reasonably informed; failure to explain a 
matter 
to 
the 
extent 
reasonably 
necessary; 
failure 
to 
communicate the basis or rate of the fee; failure to reduce a 
contingency fee agreement to writing; and failure to take steps 
reasonably 
practicable to protect the client's interests.  
Public Reprimand of Terrence Woods, 2003-11.  See also In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Woods, 221 Wis. 2d 230, 583 
No. 
2010AP1543-D   
 
4 
 
Wis. 2d 650 (1998) (60-day suspension for failure to provide 
adequate representation and failure to act with reasonable 
diligence); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Woods, 216 
Wis. 2d 137, 573 N.W.2d 838 (1998) (60-day suspension for 
failure to keep a client reasonably informed; failure to 
promptly 
comply with reasonable requests for information; 
failure to surrender property to which the client was entitled; 
failure to act with reasonable diligence; failure to cooperate 
with the investigation; and for making a misrepresentation in a 
disclosure 
to 
the 
Board 
of 
Attorneys 
Professional 
Responsibility); Private Reprimand of Terrence Woods, 1996-1 
(failure to confer with a client about case settlement; failure 
to keep the client reasonably informed; and failure to return 
the client's property); and Public Reprimand of Terrence Woods, 
1993-2 (failure to provide competent representation; failure to 
act with reasonable diligence; failure to keep the client 
reasonably informed; and failure to take reasonable steps to 
protect 
the 
client's 
interests 
upon 
the 
termination 
of 
representation). 
¶6 
In the instant proceedings, the referee found V.S. was 
served with a summons and complaint on May 24, 2008.  Attorney 
Woods had represented V.S. previously and they had an ongoing 
attorney-client relationship.  By at least June 12, 2008, 
Attorney Woods had agreed to represent V.S. in the lawsuit and 
had met with him to discuss the case.  However, Attorney Woods 
failed to file a timely answer to the complaint and did not 
timely seek an extension from the court or opposing counsel. 
No. 
2010AP1543-D   
 
5 
 
¶7 
Opposing counsel declined to agree to an extension and 
sought a default judgment against V.S.  On June 26, 2008, 
Attorney Woods filed a notice of retainer, answer, affirmative 
defenses, and counterclaim with the circuit court clerk.  
¶8 
At the July 22, 2008, hearing on plaintiff's motion 
for default judgment, Attorney Woods appeared on behalf of V.S. 
and misrepresented to the court that V.S. had hired him on or 
about June 18, 2008, after the deadline for filing an answer had 
passed.  On July 23, 2008, the court issued a default judgment 
against V.S. and his wife in the amount of $10,124.47.  
¶9 
Following the entry of a default judgment, Attorney 
Woods took no further action on behalf of V.S.  Ultimately V.S. 
retained new counsel.  
¶10 Meanwhile, on June 27, 2008, V.S. had been charged 
with two traffic violations and hired Attorney Woods to 
represent him.  The circuit court scheduled trial on both 
traffic cases for August 11, 2008.  V.S. did not receive a copy 
of the hearing notice and Attorney Woods did not advise V.S. of 
the hearing date.  
¶11 On July 8, 2008, this court issued a decision 
suspending Attorney Woods' law license for 90 days, effective 
August 11, 2008.  See Woods, 311 Wis. 2d 213.  Attorney Woods 
prepared a letter informing his clients he was subject to 
discipline and suspended from the practice of law for 90 days.  
He advised his clients to seek other legal counsel.  Although 
No. 
2010AP1543-D   
 
6 
 
the letter was dated August 6, 2008, it was not mailed until 
August 11, 2008.1   
¶12 Attorney Woods called V.S. the morning of August 11, 
2008, regarding the hearing in the two traffic cases.  V.S. said 
he could not possibly make the hearing on such short notice and 
had other commitments.  Attorney Woods indicated he would 
request a continuance.  Attorney Woods thereafter called the 
circuit court and faxed a letter to the court indicating he was 
subject to discipline and requesting the matter be postponed for 
one month.  
¶13 Neither Attorney Woods nor V.S. appeared at the 
August 11, 2008, trial.  The circuit court declined to continue 
the matter and issued a default judgment against V.S. in both 
traffic cases.  On August 12, 2008, V.S. received Attorney 
Woods' August 6, 2008, letter.  
¶14 The referee determined these facts supported three 
counts of professional misconduct as alleged in the disciplinary 
complaint.  By failing to file a timely answer or timely request 
an extension from the court and opposing counsel, and by failing 
to take meaningful action to protect his client's interests once 
notified the court had scheduled an August 11, 2008, trial on 
the traffic citations, when he knew he would not be able to 
                                                 
1 Attorney Woods did not send the letter to V.S. by 
certified mail and did not provide written notification of his 
suspension to the district attorney in the Marinette County 
traffic cases against V.S. 
No. 
2010AP1543-D   
 
7 
 
appear because of his law license suspension, the referee 
concluded Attorney Woods violated SCR 20:l.3 (diligence).2  
¶15 By informing the court he had received the complaint 
from his client after the deadline for filing an answer had 
passed, when in fact he had received the complaint prior to the 
deadline, 
the 
referee 
concluded 
Attorney 
Woods 
violated 
SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) (candor to the tribunal).3  
¶16 By failing to notify his client by certified mail and 
to provide appropriate written notice to opposing counsel of his 
suspension, the referee concluded Attorney Woods violated 
SCR 22.26(1),4 enforceable through SCR 20:8.4(f)5 and, by failing 
                                                 
2 SCR 20.1.3 says that "[a] lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
3 SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) states that a lawyer shall not knowingly 
"make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to 
correct a false statement of material fact or law previously 
made to the tribunal by the lawyer; . . . ." 
4 SCR 22.26(1) provides in part: 
On or before the effective date of license 
suspension or revocation, an attorney whose license is 
suspended or revoked shall do all of the following: 
(a) Notify by certified mail all clients being 
represented in pending matters of the suspension or 
revocation and of the attorney's consequent inability 
to act as an attorney following the effective date of 
the suspension or revocation. 
(b) Advise the clients to seek legal advice of 
their choice elsewhere.  
(c) Promptly provide written notification to the 
court or administrative agency and the attorney for 
each party in a matter pending before a court or 
administrative agency of the suspension or revocation 
No. 
2010AP1543-D   
 
8 
 
to make such disclosure, as well as by failing to timely advise 
his client of the trial date for the traffic cases, the referee 
concluded 
Attorney 
Woods 
violated 
SCRs 
20:1.4(a)(3)6 
and 
20:1.4(b)7 (communication).   
¶17 Addressing discipline, the referee found persuasive a 
number 
of 
cases 
involving 
similar 
violations 
imposing 
suspensions of four to six months.  See Boyd, 318 Wis. 2d 281; 
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jones, 2008 WI 53, 309 
Wis. 2d 585, 749 N.W.2d 603; In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Morrissey, 2005 WI 169, 286 Wis. 2d 579, 707 N.W.2d 142.  
However, the cited cases involved more counts of misconduct than 
charged here.  The referee considered Attorney Woods' extensive 
disciplinary history, however, to be an aggravating factor.  The 
referee concluded, on balance, the case law supported a six-
month license suspension.  
                                                                                                                                                             
and of the attorney's consequent inability to act as 
an attorney following the effective date of the 
suspension or revocation.  The notice shall identify 
the successor attorney of the attorney's client or, if 
there is none at the time notice is given, shall state 
the client's place of residence.  . . .  
5 SCR 20:8.4(f) states it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme court 
order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of 
lawyers; . . . ." 
6 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) states a lawyer shall "keep the client 
reasonably informed about the status of the matter; . . . ." 
7 SCR 20:1.4(b) provides that "[a] lawyer shall explain a 
matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client 
to make informed decisions regarding the representation." 
No. 
2010AP1543-D   
 
9 
 
¶18 The 
referee 
noted 
a 
retroactive 
suspension 
is 
generally not favored in the absence of some compelling 
circumstance.  See Boyd, 318 Wis. 2d 281, ¶34.  The referee 
concluded that if the OLR would seek a six-month prospective 
suspension, the effect would be to extend Attorney Woods' 
suspension longer than necessary for the misconduct at issue.  
Noting that Attorney Woods' license is currently suspended, the 
referee considered Attorney Woods' license will remain suspended 
unless and until he successfully petitions for reinstatement.  
For this reason, the referee was satisfied the public would be 
adequately protected, noting that commencing the suspension 
retroactively would simply affect the date when Attorney Woods 
would be eligible to petition for reinstatement.8 
¶19 Because no appeal is filed, we review the referee's 
report pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).9    In imposing discipline, we 
independently review the seriousness of the misconduct as well 
as the need to protect the public, the courts, and the legal 
                                                 
8 The referee does not recommend restitution and the OLR 
does not seek restitution.  To the extent any restitution would 
be indicated, a petitioner for reinstatement must demonstrate he 
has made restitution or has settled all claims of persons harmed 
by his misconduct, or provide an explanation for his failure to 
do so.  See SCR 22.29(4m). 
9 SCR 22.17(2) provides in part: 
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. . . .  
No. 
2010AP1543-D   
 
10 
 
system from repetition of misconduct, to impress upon the 
attorney the seriousness of the misconduct, and to deter other 
attorneys from committing similar misconduct.  See Woods, 311 
Wis. 2d 213, ¶22.  In reviewing this matter, we issued an order 
to show cause requiring the parties to address why, in light of 
Attorney Woods' extensive disciplinary history, a retroactive 
suspension should be imposed.  The parties filed responses that 
advocated in favor of accepting their stipulation and the 
referee's recommendation. 
¶20 We determine the seriousness of Attorney Woods' 
misconduct, together with his extensive disciplinary history, 
warrants a six-month license suspension, effective the date of 
this order.  Because Attorney Woods' extensive disciplinary 
history is an aggravating factor, we conclude he is not entitled 
to any leniency.  We generally do not favor a retroactive 
suspension, see Boyd, 318 Wis. 2d 281, and do not impose a 
retroactive suspension here.  In light of Attorney Woods' 
extensive disciplinary history, a retroactive suspension would 
not serve the objectives of lawyer discipline, which include the 
important goal of deterrence.  See Woods, 311 Wis. 2d 213, ¶22.  
We 
are 
satisfied 
no 
compelling 
circumstances 
justify 
a 
retroactive suspension.   
¶21 Full costs are imposed.  Attorney Woods has filed no 
objection to the OLR's statement of costs and the record reveals 
No. 
2010AP1543-D   
 
11 
 
no extraordinary circumstances to justify the reduction of 
costs.10 
¶22 IT IS ORDERED that Terrence J. Woods' license to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of six 
months, effective the date of this order. 
¶23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Terrence J. Woods pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs 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 Terrence J. Woods shall remain suspended until 
further order of the court. 
¶24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 
already done so, Terrence J. Woods comply with the provisions of 
SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to 
practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. 
 
                                                 
10 As of November 12, 2010, the OLR's costs total $1,697.39. 
No. 
2010AP1543-D   
 
 
 
1