Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Michele A. Tjader

Citation: 2002 WI 37

Docket Number: 2000AP002887-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2002-04-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
2002 WI 37 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
00-2887-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Michele A. Tjader, Attorney at Law. 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, f/k/a Board  
of Attorneys Professional Responsibility,  
 
Complainant, 
 
v. 
Michele A. Tjader,  
 
Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST TJADER 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
April 26, 2002   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2002 WI 37 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  00-2887-D  
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Michele A. Tjader, Attorney at  
Law. 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, f/k/a Board  
of Attorneys Professional Responsibility,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Michele A. Tjader,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
APR 26, 2002  
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the 
referee that Attorney Michele A. Tjader receive a public 
reprimand for professional misconduct.  In addition, the referee 
recommended that the court require Attorney Tjader to reimburse 
a client for interest on the delayed refund of an attorney fee, 
and to pay the costs of this proceeding. 
¶2 
We determine that a public reprimand is appropriate 
discipline for Attorney Tjader's misconduct.  We also order 
No. 
00-2887-D   
 
2 
 
Attorney Tjader to make the reimbursement to the client, K.H., 
as recommended by the referee and to pay the costs of this 
proceeding. 
¶3 
Attorney Tjader was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1996.  She has no prior disciplinary history.  The 
misconduct described herein occurred in connection with Attorney 
Tjader's representation of a client in a prison/parole matter.  
¶4 
Following a disciplinary hearing the referee made the 
following findings of fact.  In August 1998 K.H. contacted 
Attorney Tjader.  She was seeking legal assistance on behalf of 
her fiancé, P.E., who was incarcerated.  Attorney Tjader agreed 
to represent P.E. (hereinafter "client").  As the client was 
incarcerated during the period of representation, most of the 
legal discussions occurred between K.H. and Attorney Tjader.  
K.H. met with Attorney Tjader on October 1, 1998, fully 
explained the legal situation, and asked if Attorney Tjader 
could help her.  K.H. explained that the client, who had a prior 
criminal record, was serving two consecutive prison sentences 
for two burglary charges.  He had successfully completed the 
Department of Corrections' CHOICE program, an intensive alcohol 
and drug treatment program.  Apparently when the client entered 
the program, successful participants received a transfer to a 
minimum-security facility and/or a parole board review, thereby 
making the CHOICE program an "earned release" program.  However, 
when the client completed the program it was no longer 
considered an "earned release" program such that successful 
No. 
00-2887-D   
 
3 
 
participants no longer received an automatic transfer to minimum 
security.   
¶5 
K.H. wished to retain Attorney Tjader to effectuate 
the client's transfer to a minimum-security facility and/or to 
help him obtain parole.  K.H. emphasized that it was important 
that the matter be resolved quickly.   
¶6 
Attorney Tjader represented that her law firm, then 
Kalal & Associates, had substantial experience with such 
matters.  She opined that the client had a legitimate case, and 
agreed to represent the client.  The next day Attorney Tjader 
contacted K.H. by telephone to confirm that she would represent 
the client, and stated that the appropriate legal procedure was 
to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which she claimed 
she was in the process of drafting.  She further advised K.H. 
that "[a]ll of the lawyers in our defense team will work on your 
case, as needed, to assure that we provide you with the best 
possible defense."  She established a fee arrangement with a 
"maximum" fee of $5000.  K.H. paid an initial retainer of $1000 
and was advised that she would be expected to make additional 
payments of $250 per month beginning November 1, 1998. 
¶7 
At the time of this conversation Attorney Tjader had 
not handled a case like this and had filed only one habeas 
corpus petition.  Although she had a busy appellate practice 
with the firm of Kalal & Associates, she spent most of her time 
doing legal research; this case was significantly different from 
the cases she usually handled in her practice.  Prior to her 
meeting with K.H. Attorney Tjader had spoken briefly to her 
No. 
00-2887-D   
 
4 
 
supervisor, Attorney Ralph Kalal, and they decided she could 
proceed with the filing of the habeas corpus petition.  They had 
no substantive legal discussions regarding the matter.  Attorney 
Tjader reviewed one reported case but did no additional legal 
research and consulted with no other attorneys about the proper 
procedure for handling such a matter.  She acknowledged that at 
no point did she consider or research the possibility of filing 
a petition for writ of certiorari, or alternate procedural 
mechanisms for accomplishing the client's objective. 
¶8 
In a subsequent telephone conference on October 6, 
1998, Attorney Tjader spoke directly with the client and 
confirmed that she would represent him and that she would file a 
habeas corpus petition on his behalf.  She further confirmed 
with the client that he authorized Attorney Tjader to speak 
freely with K.H. about the case, such that no attorney-client 
privilege 
should 
apply 
to 
inhibit 
Attorney 
Tjader's 
communications with K.H. 
¶9 
By letter dated November 3, 1998, Attorney Tjader's 
paralegal advised K.H. that the habeas petition would be filed 
by "Thanksgiving time."   
¶10 During October, November, and December of 1998, K.H. 
made repeated attempts to contact Attorney Tjader regarding the 
status of the petition.  She was unable to reach Attorney Tjader 
directly and Attorney Tjader did not respond to any of the phone 
messages that K.H. left with Attorney Tjader's secretary and 
paralegal.  Between late November and early December 1998 K.H. 
left at least six messages for Attorney Tjader because she had 
No. 
00-2887-D   
 
5 
 
not received a copy of the habeas corpus petition she had been 
told would be filed by Thanksgiving.  K.H. eventually succeeded 
in reaching Attorney Tjader on December 9, 1998.  During that 
telephone conversation K.H. told Attorney Tjader that she was 
disappointed that Attorney Tjader had not returned her calls.  
Attorney Tjader apparently indicated that she didn't return the 
calls because K.H. "always asked the same questions."  Attorney 
Tjader claimed that she was in the process of finalizing the 
petition.  Attorney Tjader made no notes of her initial 
conference with K.H. or of her telephone conversations with 
either K.H. or the client.  She kept no time records.   
¶11 Attorney Tjader later claimed that the client made a 
collect telephone call to her "sometime in November" to request 
that she "hold off" filing the petition.  However, the referee 
discounted this claim, noting that Attorney Tjader had "no 
record of the charges for such a telephone call, [had] no 
contemporaneous notes of such a call, nor did she confirm to the 
client or to K.H. that she would stop work on the case."  Both 
the client and K.H. deny that the client ever made this request.  
¶12 On January 11, 1999, the client wrote directly to 
Attorney Tjader asking about several things, including the 
status of the petition.  Attorney Tjader did not respond to his 
query regarding the petition.  In the second week of January 
1999 Attorney Tjader told K.H. that the petition had been filed.  
K.H. contacted the clerk of court and learned that no petition 
had been filed.  When she confronted Attorney Tjader, Attorney 
Tjader claimed that the petition had been filed and promised to 
No. 
00-2887-D   
 
6 
 
look into the matter herself and to send a copy to K.H. by 
Federal Express.  Attorney Tjader failed to follow through and, 
in fact, never filed the petition. 
¶13 On February 11, 1999, K.H. sent a certified letter to 
Attorney Tjader terminating Attorney Tjader's services and 
requesting a refund of the legal fees she had paid, as well as a 
return of the file materials she had given Attorney Tjader.  She 
also wrote to Attorney Tjader's supervisor, Attorney Ralph 
Kalal, to inform him of the situation and repeated her request 
for a refund of the legal fees she had paid.   
¶14 Attorney Kalal responded to K.H. in writing, claiming 
he could not discuss the matter with K.H. because of attorney 
client considerations.  He refused to adjust the legal charges 
absent a letter from the client discharging the firm.  Attorney 
Tjader approved this letter despite her knowledge that the 
client had clearly instructed her that attorney client privilege 
should not impede any discussions with K.H.   
¶15 Eventually, 
after 
the 
disciplinary 
investigation 
commenced, Attorney Tjader repaid the full amount of the legal 
fees ($1750) paid by K.H.  However, she failed to pay the 5% 
interest on the fee as requested by the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation (OLR).1   
                                                 
1 The referee was particularly troubled by this delay 
because Attorney Tjader was aware that K.H. would be adversely 
affected, both financially and emotionally, by the delay in 
receiving the refund. 
No. 
00-2887-D   
 
7 
 
¶16 On 
October 
19, 
2000, 
the 
OLR 
commenced 
this 
disciplinary proceeding with the filing of a complaint against 
Attorney Tjader.2  The complaint alleged that Attorney Tjader had 
engaged in five counts of professional misconduct.   
¶17 First, the OLR alleged that Attorney Tjader violated 
SCR 20:1.33 by failing to act with reasonable diligence in 
representing a client. 
¶18 Second, the OLR alleged that Attorney Tjader violated 
SCR 20:1.4(a)4 by failing to comply with reasonable requests for 
information.   
¶19 Third, the OLR alleged that Attorney Tjader violated 
SCR 20:8.4(c)5 by conduct involving dishonesty, deceit and 
misrepresentation. 
                                                 
2 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 from Board of 
Attorneys Professional Responsibility (BAPR) to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and the supreme court rules applicable 
to the lawyer regulation system were also revised.  Most of the 
conduct giving rise to this complaint occurred prior to October 
1, 2000.  However, the references to supreme court rules will be 
to those currently in effect unless specifically noted. 
 
3 SCR 20:1.3 provides that "[a] lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
 
4 SCR 20:1.4(a) provides that "[a] lawyer shall keep a 
client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and 
promptly comply with reasonable requests for information." 
 
5 SCR 
20:8.4(c) 
provides 
that 
"[i]t 
is 
professional 
misconduct 
for 
a 
lawyer 
to 
engage 
in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation." 
 
No. 
00-2887-D   
 
8 
 
¶20 Fourth, the OLR alleged that Attorney Tjader violated 
SCR 20:1.16 by acting without legal knowledge, thoroughness and 
preparation reasonably necessary for representation. 
¶21 Fifth, the OLR alleged that Attorney Tjader violated 
SCR 20:1.16(d)7 by failing to promptly return an advance payment 
of fees that had not been earned. 
¶22 Attorney Tjader filed an answer.  A referee was 
appointed and a hearing conducted on May 21 and 22, and June 15, 
2001.  At the conclusion of the hearing the parties submitted 
posthearing briefs and responsive briefs.  The referee issued 
written findings of fact and conclusions of law, concluding, on 
the basis of the facts previously set forth herein, that 
Attorney 
Tjader 
violated 
SCR 
20:1.3, 
SCR 
20:1.4(a), 
SCR 
20:8.4(c), SCR 20:1.1, and SCR 20:1.16(d).  Attorney Tjader did 
not appeal the report and recommendation.   
                                                 
6 SCR 20:1.1 provides that "[a] lawyer shall provide 
competent representation to a client. Competent representation 
requires 
the 
legal 
knowledge, 
skill, 
thoroughness 
and 
preparation reasonably necessary for the representation." 
 
7 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides:  
 
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. 
 
No. 
00-2887-D   
 
9 
 
¶23 We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law.  Attorney Tjader's misconduct with respect 
to her handling of this matter is a serious failing.  As 
discipline for the professional misconduct we impose a public 
reprimand and order Attorney Tjader to reimburse K.H. in the 
amount of $132.72 for interest on the delayed refund of attorney 
fees and to pay the costs of this proceeding, as recommended by 
the referee. 
¶24 IT IS ORDERED that Attorney Michele A. Tjader be 
publicly reprimanded for her professional misconduct. 
¶25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 30 days of the date 
of this order Attorney Michele A. Tjader shall reimburse K.H. in 
the amount of $132.72.  If K.H. is not reimbursed within the 
time specified, absent a showing to this court of her inability 
to pay the reimbursement within that time, the license of 
Attorney Michele A. Tjader to practice law in Wisconsin shall be 
suspended until further order of the court. 
¶26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Attorney Michele A. Tjader shall pay to the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding in the amount 
of $9396.28. If the costs are not paid within the time 
specified, and absent a showing to this court of her inability 
to pay the costs within that time, the license of Attorney 
Michele A. Tjader to practice law in Wisconsin shall be 
suspended until further order of the court. 
No. 
00-2887-D   
 
 
 
1