Case Title: Keith E Broadnax v.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1995AP002030-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 1997-03-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
95-2030-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against 
Keith E. Broadnax, 
Attorney at Law. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BROADNAX 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
March 12, 1997 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating:  
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
No. 95-2030-D 
 
 1 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing 
and modification.  The final version will 
appear in the bound volume of the official 
reports. 
 
 
No. 95-2030-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against KEITH E. BROADNAX, Attorney at 
Law. 
FILED 
 
MAR 12, 1997 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
Attorney 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
 
Attorney’s 
license 
suspended. 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report of the referee 
recommending that the license of Attorney Keith E. Broadnax to 
practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for 90 days as discipline 
for professional misconduct and that for three years he be 
required to comply with specified conditions directed to his 
rehabilitation from alcohol and chemical dependency. Attorney 
Broadnax’s professional misconduct consisted of his neglect of 
client matters, failure to communicate adequately to a client 
the basis of his fee, failure to refund an unearned fee, and 
failure to cooperate with the Board of Attorneys Professional 
Responsibility 
(Board) 
in 
its investigation 
of 
misconduct 
allegations.  
¶2 
We determine that the recommended 90-day license 
suspension is appropriate discipline to impose for Attorney 
Broadnax’s 
professional 
misconduct 
established 
in 
this 
No. 95-2030-D 
 
 2 
proceeding. His failure to act in matters he had undertaken on 
behalf of clients, at times resulting in default judgment, and 
his untimely and incomplete response to the court’s disciplinary 
authority 
investigating 
those 
matters 
constitute 
serious 
breaches of his professional obligations. In addition, we 
determine that imposition of the recommended conditions on his 
continued practice of law are appropriate. While there is no 
contention or evidence that his misconduct was caused by his 
alcohol and chemical dependency, Attorney Broadnax raised the 
issue of his medical condition in the course of this proceeding.  
¶3 
Attorney Broadnax was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1981 and practices in Milwaukee. In November, 1989, 
the Board privately reprimanded him for his failure to file the 
findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment in a divorce 
matter timely and for his misrepresentation to the Board during 
its investigation that he had filed them. The referee in the 
instant proceeding, Attorney John R. Decker, made findings of 
fact 
and 
conclusions 
of 
law 
pursuant 
to 
the 
parties’ 
stipulation.  
¶4 
In March, 1994, Attorney Broadnax was retained and 
paid $500 to defend a man in an action brought by an insurance 
company. Attorney Broadnax informed the insurer’s attorney that 
he would be filing a motion for adjournment but failed to attend 
a scheduled pretrial hearing, as a result of which the plaintiff 
was granted a default judgment. Attorney Broadnax asked the 
insurer’s attorney to agree to reopening the case but filed no 
motion to reopen the default judgment. Moreover, Attorney 
No. 95-2030-D 
 
 3 
Broadnax did not inform his client that the $6500 default 
judgment had been entered against him.  
¶5 
In August, 1994, the same client was named defendant 
in an action by another insurer arising out of the same matter 
as in the prior case and retained Attorney Broadnax to represent 
him. Attorney Broadnax did not file a notice of appearance or an 
answer to the complaint, and the plaintiff obtained a default 
judgment in the amount of $13,291 in October, 1994. The client 
did not learn of this or of the prior default judgment until he 
applied for a loan. Attorney Broadnax repeatedly promised him 
and the lender that he would reopen the second judgment but took 
no action to do so. Other counsel retained by the client 
succeeded in having the second judgment set aside but was 
unsuccessful with the first.  
¶6 
The referee concluded, as the parties had stipulated, 
that Attorney Broadnax’s failure to diligently represent his 
client in the two matters violated SCR 20:1.3,1 his failure to 
keep the client reasonably informed of the status of those 
matters after default judgments had been granted violated SCR 
20:1.4(a), 2 his failure to tell his client the basis for his fee 
for representation in the matters when he accepted the $500 
retainer and his failure to enter into a written fee agreement 
                     
1 SCR 20:1.3 provides: Diligence 
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in representing a client. 
2 SCR 20:1.4 provides, in pertinent part: Communication 
(a) A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about 
the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable 
requests for information.  
No. 95-2030-D 
 
 4 
with the client violated SCR 20:1.5(b),3 and his failure to 
refund the client’s $500 retainer violated SCR 20:1.16(d).4 In 
addition, his failure to respond to numerous requests from the 
Board seeking information on the client’s grievance, even after 
obtaining an extension of time to do so, violated SCR 21.03(4)5 
and 22.07(2).6  
                     
3 SCR 20:1.5 provides, in pertinent part: Fees 
. . . 
(b) 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.  
4 SCR 20:1.16 provides, in pertinent part: Declining or 
terminating representation 
. . . 
(d) 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.  
5 SCR 21.03 provides, in pertinent part: General principles. 
. . . 
(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.  
6 SCR 22.07 provides, in pertinent part: Investigation. 
. . . 
(2) 
During 
the 
course 
of 
an 
investigation, 
the 
administrator or a committee may notify the respondent of the 
subject being investigated. The respondent shall fully and 
fairly disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to the 
No. 95-2030-D 
 
 5 
¶7 
Attorney Broadnax also did not respond timely in 1994 
to requests from the Board investigating the grievance of a 
client who had retained him to pursue collection of a judgment. 
Attorney Broadnax asserted that his failure to respond was 
caused in part by medical treatment but did not respond to Board 
requests for documentation from a physician verifying that 
claim. The referee concluded that his failure to cooperate with 
the Board’s investigation violated SCR 21.03(4) and 22.07(2).  
¶8 
In another matter, Attorney Broadnax was retained in 
March, 1995 by a client to serve an eviction notice on a tenant, 
but the client immediately canceled that representation when the 
tenant paid the overdue rent. The client had given Attorney 
Broadnax a check for $166 for his services, which Attorney 
Broadnax negotiated. When the client repeatedly asked him to 
return 
that 
money, 
Attorney 
Broadnax 
told 
her 
that 
his 
“consulting fee” was $60 and said he would return the remainder 
promptly. When he did not do so, the client contacted the Board, 
and the Board asked Attorney Broadnax for an explanation. 
Attorney Broadnax did not respond to that request or to 
subsequent 
requests 
sent 
by 
certified 
mail. 
The 
client 
ultimately received a $160 refund.  
¶9 
The referee concluded that Attorney Broadnax failed to 
take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect his 
                                                                  
alleged misconduct or medical incapacity within 20 days of being 
served by ordinary mail a request for response to a grievance. 
The administrator in his or her discretion may allow additional 
time 
to 
respond. 
Failure 
to 
provide 
information 
or 
misrepresentation 
in 
a 
disclosure 
is 
misconduct. 
The 
administrator or committee may make a further investigation 
before making a recommendation to the board.  
No. 95-2030-D 
 
 6 
client’s interests when he failed to return promptly her advance 
payment of fees that he had not earned, in violation of SCR 
20:1.16(d), and failed to cooperate in the Board’s investigation 
of the client’s grievance, in violation of SCR 21.03(4) and 
22.07(2).  
¶10 The 
final 
matter 
considered 
in 
this 
proceeding 
concerned Attorney Broadnax’s failure in the summer of 1995 to 
respond to requests from the Board for information concerning 
the grievance of a client who had retained him in a criminal 
matter. After failing to respond to subsequent certified mail 
requests 
for 
information, 
Attorney 
Broadnax 
was 
served 
personally with a notice to attend a meeting with the Board’s 
staff investigating the matter. In September, 1995, he notified 
the Board that he was hospitalized in a psychiatric hospital and 
was 
unable 
to 
respond. 
The 
investigative 
interview 
was 
rescheduled and Attorney Broadnax was asked to bring to it his 
client’s file and a statement from his treating physician 
regarding his condition. Attorney Broadnax appeared but did not 
bring 
any 
statement 
regarding 
his 
medical 
condition 
as 
requested. Thereafter, he did not respond to requests for 
information regarding the grievance. The referee concluded that 
Attorney Broadnax thus violated SCR 21.03(4) and 22.07(2).  
¶11 In the course of this proceeding, Attorney Broadnax 
asserted that he had not filed an answer to the Board’s 
complaint because of a psychiatric problem for which he was 
undergoing medical treatment. The proceeding was adjourned 
pending Attorney Broadnax’s inpatient treatment, and the referee 
appointed a physician to examine him and file a report 
No. 95-2030-D 
 
 7 
concerning 
his 
medical 
capacity 
to 
participate 
in 
this 
proceeding and to practice law. Medical reports filed by that 
physician 
and 
by 
Attorney 
Broadnax’s 
treating 
physician 
disclosed his history of cocaine and cannabis dependence and a 
mental disorder, for all of which he was receiving treatment.  
¶12 As discipline for his professional misconduct, the 
referee recommended that Attorney Broadnax’s license to practice 
law be suspended for 90 days. In addition, the referee 
recommended that he be required to refund to the client in the 
insurance litigation the $500 retainer he did not earn and pay 
the costs of this proceeding. In response to his documented 
medical condition, the referee further recommended that Attorney 
Broadnax’s continued practice of law be made subject to his 
compliance with specified conditions directed to his continued 
treatment and rehabilitation, including abstinence from alcohol 
and controlled substances, periodic drug screens, and regular 
reports to the Board of his treatment progress.  
¶13 We 
adopt 
the 
referee’s 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law and determine that the recommended 90-day 
license suspension is appropriate discipline to impose for 
Attorney Broadnax’s professional misconduct in these matters. We 
also require him to refund the client’s unearned retainer and 
pay the costs of this proceeding. Finally, we impose for a 
period of three years the conditions specified in the referee’s 
report.  
¶14 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Keith E. Broadnax to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 90 days, 
effective the date of this order.  
No. 95-2030-D 
 
 8 
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Keith E. Broadnax refund the retainer to his 
former client as specified in the report of the referee.  
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Keith E. Broadnax pay to the Board of Attorneys 
Professional Responsibility 
the costs 
of this 
proceeding, 
provided that 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 Keith E. Broadnax 
to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until 
further order of the court.  
¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that for a period of three years 
from the date of this order Keith E. Broadnax comply with the 
conditions specified in the report of the referee concerning 
treatment of his medical condition.  
¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Keith E. Broadnax comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a 
person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended.