Case Title: Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility v. Judith A. Pinchar

Citation: 2000 WI 122

Docket Number: 2000AP001487-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2000-11-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
2000 WI 122 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
00-1487-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Judith A. Pinchar, Attorney at Law. 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility,  
 
Complainant, 
 
v. 
Judith A. Pinchar,  
 
Respondent.  
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PINCHAR 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
November 14, 2000 
Submitted on Briefs: 
      
Oral Argument: 
      
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
      
 
Dissented: 
      
 
Not Participating:       
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
      
 
2000 WI 122 
 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear in 
the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No.  00-1487-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Judith A. Pinchar, Attorney at  
Law. 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional  
Responsibility,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Judith A. Pinchar,  
 
          Respondent.  
 
FILED 
 
NOV 14, 2000 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.  
¶1 
PER 
CURIAM   We 
review the 
stipulation 
filed by 
Attorney 
Judith 
A. 
Pinchar 
and 
the 
Board 
of 
Attorneys 
Professional Responsibility (Board)1 pursuant to SCR 21.09(3m)2 
                     
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 and the Supreme Court Rules applicable to the 
lawyer regulation system were also revised.  Since the conduct 
underlying this case arose prior to October 1, 2000, the body 
will be referred to as "the Board" and all references to Supreme 
Court Rules will be to those in effect prior to October 1, 2000.  
 
2 Former SCR 21.09(3m) provided: 
                No. 00-1487-D   
 
2 
setting forth findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning 
Attorney 
Pinchar's 
professional misconduct 
for 
failing to 
cooperate with the Board's investigation; failing to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; 
failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of 
a matter and failing to promptly comply with a client's 
reasonable request for information; and engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.  The 
parties also stipulated to a 60-day suspension of Attorney 
Pinchar's license to practice law as a discipline for that 
misconduct. 
 
¶2 
We approve the stipulation and determine that the 
seriousness of Attorney 
Pinchar's 
misconduct 
warrants the 
suspension of her license to practice law for 60 days.   
 
¶3 
Attorney Pinchar was admitted to the practice of law 
in Wisconsin in 1982 and practices in the Milwaukee area.  In 
1999, she consented to a Board imposed private reprimand for 
misconduct consisting of failing either to settle a client's 
claim or file suit before the statute of limitations ran; 
failing to respond to the client's attempts to contact her and 
                                                                  
(3m) The board may file with a complaint a stipulation by 
the board and the respondent attorney to the facts, conclusions 
of law and discipline to be imposed.  The supreme court may 
consider the complaint and stipulation without appointing a 
referee.  If the supreme court approves the stipulation, it 
shall adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of law and 
impose the stipulated discipline. If the supreme court rejects 
the stipulation, a referee shall be appointed pursuant to sub. 
(4) and the matter shall proceed pursuant to SCR chapter 22.  A 
stipulation that is rejected has no evidentiary value and is 
without prejudice to the respondent's defense of the proceeding 
or the board's prosecution of the complaint.  
                No. 00-1487-D   
 
3 
failing to inform the client that the statute of limitations had 
passed; and failing to respond to inquiries from Board staff 
investigating the matter.   
 
¶4 
On June 16, 1999, the Board received a letter from one 
of Attorney Pinchar's clients regarding her alleged failure to 
return file materials.  This client had previously filed a 
grievance against Attorney Pinchar which resulted in the private 
reprimand referred to above.  On June 23, 1999, a Board staff 
investigator sent a letter to Attorney Pinchar requesting that 
she provide written confirmation that she had given the file to 
the client.  Attorney Pinchar failed to respond.  A second 
letter was sent to Attorney Pinchar via both certified mail and 
first-class mail on July 14, 1999.  Attorney Pinchar received 
this letter but did not respond to it.  A third letter was sent 
on September 23, 1999, citing Attorney Pinchar's obligations 
under the Supreme Court Rules to cooperate with the Board and 
requesting a written response within 20 days.  Attorney Pinchar 
again did not respond.  
¶5 
On November 9, 1999, a Notice to Attend Investigative 
Interview in the Board's offices on November 18 was mailed to 
Attorney Pinchar with the request that she return a signed 
admission of service.  When no admission of service was 
received, the notice was sent to a process server and Attorney 
Pinchar was personally served on November 16.  Attorney Pinchar 
did not appear at the appointed time on November 18.  She called 
the Board's office and said she would submit a written response 
to the inquiry the following morning.  The promised response was 
not sent.  Board staff prepared an investigative report 
                No. 00-1487-D   
 
4 
recommending that the Board seek a temporary suspension of 
Attorney Pinchar's license based on her failure to cooperate.  
That report was both mailed and hand-delivered to Attorney 
Pinchar's office.  Attorney Pinchar delivered a response to the 
grievance on December 3, 1999.   
¶6 
In a second matter, on September 13, 1999, the Board 
received a grievance from another client alleging that Attorney 
Pinchar failed to respond to that client's attempts to contact 
her.  On September 16, 1999, a Board staff investigator sent an 
initial letter of inquiry to Attorney Pinchar requesting a 
response to the grievance within 20 days.  Attorney Pinchar 
failed to respond to the letter.  A second letter was sent on 
October 12, 1999.  Again, no response was received.   
¶7 
A 
Notice 
to 
Attend 
Investigative 
Interview 
was 
personally served on Attorney Pinchar on November 16, 1999, 
informing her that she was to attend an investigative interview 
in the Board's offices on November 18.  Attorney Pinchar did not 
appear at the appointed time but called the Board's offices and 
said she would submit a written response to this inquiry the 
following day at the same time she promised to serve a response 
to the Board's inquiry in the matter involving the first client. 
 The promised response was not sent, and Board staff prepared an 
investigative 
report 
recommending 
that 
the 
Board 
seek 
a 
temporary suspension of Attorney Pinchar's license based on her 
failure to cooperate.  That report was both mailed and hand-
delivered to Attorney Pinchar's office on November 23, 1999.   
¶8 
In a third matter, in August of 1998, a man retained 
Attorney Pinchar to represent his son, who had previously 
                No. 00-1487-D   
 
5 
received a stayed prison sentence and was placed on probation.  
The son's probation was subsequently revoked.  He wanted the 
circuit court to reverse the administrative decision to revoke 
his probation.  A petition for writ of certiorari was filed on 
October 8, 1998.  A writ issued; the record was submitted by the 
division of hearings and appeals; and a briefing schedule was 
issued by the circuit court on November 6, 1998.   
¶9 
Between the fall of 1998 and May 1999, Attorney 
Pinchar represented to her client that his petition was pending 
in Milwaukee County Circuit Court.  Her brief in support of the 
petition was due in either December 1998 or January 1999.  She 
never filed the brief.  The circuit court called Attorney 
Pinchar three times in early March regarding her failure to file 
a brief in support of the petition.  On March 22, 1999, the 
circuit court ordered the petition dismissed for failure to 
prosecute.   
¶10 Attorney Pinchar did not inform her client of the 
court's dismissal of his petition.  Instead, in May of 1999, she 
communicated to him that she had filed a brief in support of his 
petition and that a decision was pending.  In June of 1999, her 
client's father hired another attorney.  That attorney checked 
the status of the petition and learned that it had been 
dismissed for failure to prosecute. 
¶11 In the summer of 1998, the client's wife filed a 
petition for divorce in Arkansas.  The client's father retained 
Attorney Pinchar to represent his son in the divorce proceeding. 
 Attorney Pinchar filed an objection to the jurisdiction of the 
court and an answer to the divorce petition.  Attorney Pinchar 
                No. 00-1487-D   
 
6 
was not licensed to practice law in Arkansas and she did not 
seek admission pro hac vice.  Filing the answer while unlicensed 
in Arkansas and not otherwise permitted to appear there violated 
the regulation of the legal profession in Arkansas.   
¶12 Attorney Pinchar filed nothing further in the Arkansas 
divorce case.  In April of 1999, her client's father retained an 
Arkansas attorney, who discovered that the divorce had been 
granted in December 1998.  The client's father had paid Attorney 
Pinchar a retainer of $1500 for her services.  In June of 1999, 
she refunded $1000 and told her client's father she had reserved 
$500 to assist in hiring local counsel for his son in the 
divorce matter.  Attorney Pinchar neither hired local counsel 
nor refunded the remaining $500. 
¶13 On July 15, 1999, the Board received a grievance from 
the client's father and on August 19, 1999, it received a 
statement from the client indicating that he joined his father 
in the grievance against Attorney Pinchar.  On August 6, 1999, a 
Board staff investigator sent an initial letter of inquiry to 
Attorney Pinchar requesting a response to the grievance within 
20 days.  Attorney Pinchar did not respond to this letter.  A 
second letter was sent on September 2, 1999. Attorney Pinchar 
received that letter but did not respond. 
¶14 This grievance was assigned to the Board's District 2 
Professional Responsibility Committee (PRC).  An attorney member 
of the PRC was assigned to investigate the grievance.  He sent a 
letter to Attorney Pinchar on October 22, 1999, asking her to 
contact him.  Attorney Pinchar failed to respond.  The PRC 
investigator had a chance meeting with Attorney Pinchar at a 
                No. 00-1487-D   
 
7 
courthouse during which he asked that she contact him.  In 
November of 1999, Attorney Pinchar and the investigator met in 
his offices to discuss the matter. 
¶15 The parties stipulated that by failing to respond to 
letters from staff and failing to appear at an investigative 
interview, despite being personally served, and by ultimately 
supplying a grievance response only under threat of suspension, 
Attorney Pinchar failed to cooperate with the investigation of 
the three grievances, in violation of SCR 21.03(4)3 and SCR 
22.07(3) and (4).4   
¶16 The parties also stipulated that by failing to take 
proper and timely steps to protect her client's interest by 
securing local counsel in the Arkansas divorce action, Attorney 
Pinchar failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
                     
3 Former SCR 21.03(4) provided: 
(4) Every attorney shall cooperate with the board and the 
administrator in the investigation, prosecution and disposition 
of grievances and complaints filed with or by the board or 
administrator. 
4  Former SCR 22.07(3) and (4) provided: 
(3) 
The 
administrator 
or 
committee 
may 
compel 
the 
respondent to answer questions, furnish documents and present 
any information deemed relevant to the investigation.  Failure 
of the respondent to answer questions, furnish documents or 
present relevant information is misconduct.  The administrator 
or a committee may compel any other person to produce pertinent 
books, papers and documents under SCR 22.22.  
(4) The duty of the respondent to cooperate with the 
board's investigation does not affect the respondent's privilege 
against self-incrimination, but the privilege may be claimed 
only in respect to matters which may subject the respondent to 
criminal liability.  
                No. 00-1487-D   
 
8 
in representing a client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3.5  In 
addition, the parties stipulated that by failing to inform her 
client that his petition for certiorari had been dismissed and 
by failing to inform him that the divorce had been granted, 
Attorney Pinchar failed to keep a client reasonably informed 
about the status of a matter and failed to promptly comply with 
a client's reasonable request for information, in violation of 
SCR 20:1.4(a).6   
¶17 The 
parties 
further 
stipulated 
that 
by 
falsely 
informing her client that she had filed a brief in support of 
the petition for writ of certiorari and that she was awaiting 
the court's decision when, in fact, she had filed no brief and 
the petition had already been dismissed, Attorney Pinchar 
engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or 
misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).7  The parties 
also stipulated that by providing legal representation in an 
action pending in a jurisdiction in which she was unlicensed, 
                     
5 SCR 20:1.3 provides: Diligence 
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in representing a client.  
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.   
7 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides: 
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: 
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation.  
                No. 00-1487-D   
 
9 
and by failing to seek permission from the court in Arkansas, or 
seek admission pro hac vice, before filing an answer on her 
client's 
behalf, 
Attorney 
Pinchar 
practiced 
law 
in 
a 
jurisdiction where doing so violates the regulation of the legal 
profession in that jurisdiction, in violation of SCR 20:5.5(a).8  
¶18 In addition to the 60-day license suspension, the 
parties stipulated that Attorney Pinchar refund the remaining 
$500 to the client's father.  
¶19 We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law 
set forth in the parties' stipulation.  Attorney Pinchar's 
failure to cooperate with the Board's investigation of the three 
grievances and her handling of the petition for writ of 
certiorari and Arkansas divorce action are serious failings 
warranting a suspension of her license.  A 60-day suspension of 
her license to practice law is appropriate discipline for her 
professional misconduct.   
¶20 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Judith A. Pinchar to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, 
effective December 19, 2000. 
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Judith A. Pinchar comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a 
person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended. 
                     
8 SCR 20:5.5(a) provides: 
A lawyer shall not: 
(a) practice law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates 
the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction.  
                No. 00-1487-D   
 
10
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Judith A. Pinchar refund 
the remaining $500 to her client's father within 30 days of the 
date of this order. If the $500 refund is not made within that 
time, the license of Judith A. Pinchar to practice law in 
Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of the 
court.  
¶23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Judith A. Pinchar 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 her inability to pay the costs within that time, the 
license of Judith A. Pinchar to practice law in Wisconsin shall 
remain 
suspended 
until 
further 
order 
of 
the 
court.
 
 
1