Case Title: Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility v. Charles Glynn

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1999AP002223-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2000-10-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
2000 WI 117 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
99-2223-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Charles Glynn, Attorney at Law. 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility,  
 
Complainant, 
 
v. 
Charles Glynn,  
 
Respondent. 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GLYNN 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
October 26, 2000 
Submitted on Briefs: 
      
Oral Argument: 
      
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
      
 
Dissented: 
      
 
Not Participating: BABLITCH and PROSSER, J.J., did not participate. 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
      
 
2000 WI 117 
 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear in 
the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No. 99-2223-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Charles Glynn, Attorney at Law. 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional  
Responsibility,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Charles Glynn,  
 
          Respondent.  
 
FILED 
 
OCT 26, 2000 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended. 
¶1 
PER CURIAM   We review the recommendation of the 
referee that the license of Charles Glynn to practice law in 
Wisconsin be suspended for nine months as discipline for 
professional 
misconduct 
and 
that 
the 
suspension 
be 
made 
consecutive to the 
one-year 
license 
suspension 
previously 
imposed by the court for other professional misconduct.  The 
misconduct established in the instant proceeding consisted of 
failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 
representing clients, failing to explain matters to the extent 
reasonably necessary to permit two of those clients to make 
No. 
99-2223-D 
 
2 
informed decisions regarding their representation, and failing 
to 
cooperate 
with 
the 
Board 
of 
Attorneys 
Professional 
Responsibility (Board) in its investigation into his conduct.   
¶2 
We 
determine 
that 
the 
professional 
misconduct 
established in this proceeding warrants the suspension of 
Attorney Glynn's license to practice law for nine months and 
that it is appropriate that the suspension be consecutive to the 
previous license suspension, as Attorney Glynn has not been 
reinstated to the practice of law following the completion of 
that suspension on June 14, 2000.  The misconduct considered in 
the instant proceeding is of the same kind as some of the 
misconduct 
for 
which 
Attorney 
Glynn 
already 
has 
been 
disciplined, and if it had been considered in the earlier 
disciplinary proceeding, we would have imposed discipline in 
that proceeding similar to that resulting from our imposition of 
a consecutive nine-month license suspension in this proceeding. 
¶3 
Attorney Glynn was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1991 and, prior to his license suspension that 
commenced 
June 
14, 
1999, 
practiced 
in 
Milwaukee. 
 
That 
suspension, which continues in effect for the reason that 
Attorney Glynn has not sought reinstatement of his license, was 
imposed for misconduct that included paying himself excessive 
and unauthorized fees in two guardianship matters and attempting 
to justify those payments by false itemized statements and by 
documents falsely indicating that he was reimbursing the estates 
for disbursements he had made to himself without court approval. 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Glynn, 225 Wis. 2d 202, 591 
No. 
99-2223-D 
 
3 
N.W.2d 606 (1999).  In the instant proceeding, Attorney Glynn 
stipulated to and the referee, Attorney Rose Marie Baron, made 
findings 
of 
fact 
concerning 
the 
following 
professional 
misconduct. 
¶4 
In August 1994, Attorney Glynn was appointed by the 
State Public Defender to represent a client in post-conviction 
proceedings following the client's conviction and sentence to 
life in prison.  Attorney Glynn and the client agreed to appeal 
the conviction and sentence, but even though he had received the 
complete trial transcripts by February 1995, Attorney Glynn did 
not respond to many of the client's communications concerning 
the status of the appeal through 1997.  He also did not respond 
timely to two letters from the State Public Defender encouraging 
him to contact the client, who had complained about Attorney 
Glynn's representation and lack of communication.   
¶5 
Attorney Glynn did not contact the client until late 
October 1997.  Believing Attorney Glynn would continue to pursue 
the appeal, as the two had discussed, and hearing nothing from 
him after that discussion, the client again asked the State 
Public Defender to appoint a new attorney and filed a grievance 
with the Board.  Although he met with the client thereafter, 
Attorney Glynn took no further steps on the client's behalf, and 
new counsel was appointed for the client.  Throughout Attorney 
Glynn's representation, no notice of appeal was filed, and the 
client's right to a direct appeal thereby was jeopardized.  
During the Board's investigation of the matter, Attorney Glynn 
No. 
99-2223-D 
 
4 
did not provide a written response to the client's grievance or 
produce his file, as the Board twice had requested.   
¶6 
In a second matter, a client retained Attorney Glynn 
in March 1997 to resolve a construction lien dispute.  In 
response to the client's request, Attorney Glynn sent him a copy 
of a letter he purportedly had sent to opposing counsel in the 
matter, which letter indicated a copy having been sent to the 
client but which the client had not received earlier.  In fact, 
however, opposing counsel had received no letter from Attorney 
Glynn. 
¶7 
When the client was served with a summons and 
complaint in September 1997, Attorney Glynn told him he had been 
in touch with opposing counsel and that he should have received 
the pleading.  Soon thereafter, Attorney Glynn told the client 
he had sent opposing counsel copies of documents concerning the 
lien, but opposing counsel never received those documents.  
¶8 
A default judgment in the action was entered in 
December 1997, but Attorney Glynn did not inform his client of 
it when the client contacted him the following month.  Indeed, 
Attorney Glynn then reassured the client about the progress of 
the matter and during one conversation said he was commencing an 
action against the subcontractor.  Months later, the client was 
able to reach Attorney Glynn, after having left numerous 
telephone messages but having received no response, and told him 
he would obtain other counsel if Attorney Glynn did not handle 
the matter properly.  Attorney Glynn again reassured the client, 
No. 
99-2223-D 
 
5 
as he did several months later when the client finally reached 
him after unsuccessfully attempting to do so for three months.   
¶9 
When the client obtained other counsel in August 1998, 
that attorney asked Attorney Glynn to send him all of the 
material in the client's file as soon as possible.  That 
attorney subsequently learned of the default judgment against 
the client and that Attorney Glynn had not been in contact with 
opposing counsel in the lien matter as he had represented to the 
client.  Other than one telephone call shortly before receiving 
the April 30, 1997, letter, which he did not receive until 
December 17 of that year, two days after the default judgment 
had been entered, opposing counsel had had no contact with 
Attorney Glynn.  During the Board's investigation of the 
client's grievance in this matter, Attorney Glynn delivered a 
copy of the client's file but did not respond to subsequent 
requests from the Board for information in the matter. 
¶10 A 
third 
matter 
concerned 
Attorney 
Glynn's 
representation of a client in several criminal matters pending 
in different counties.  Attorney Glynn appeared at a scheduled 
plea hearing and sentencing in one of those matters on January 
15, 1999, but his client was not present, which resulted in a 
warrant being issued for the client's arrest.  After the client 
was arrested, he appeared in circuit court on three new criminal 
cases in which he was represented by a public defender.  Because 
it was known that Attorney Glynn was representing the client in 
other matters pending in that court, the court attempted to 
contact Attorney Glynn to ascertain whether he was still 
No. 
99-2223-D 
 
6 
representing the client.  Attorney Glynn did not return any of 
the court's calls and did not respond to a letter from the 
judge.   
¶11 The 
court 
then 
sent 
Attorney 
Glynn 
a 
notice  
scheduling the client's plea and sentencing, and when he failed 
to appear on that date, the court issued an order requiring 
Attorney Glynn to show cause why he should not be found in 
contempt. On the return date of that order, Attorney Glynn said 
that while he was in the courthouse on another matter prior to 
that hearing, he had attempted to see the judge to explain his 
failure to appear and his not responding to the court's calls 
and letter but did not get an opportunity to talk with the 
judge.  Unsure of that explanation, the judge sent a copy of the 
transcript of that hearing to the Board, and the Board 
subsequently ascertained that Attorney Glynn had not made an 
appearance in another case in the courthouse on the day he said 
he had attempted to see the judge.  During the Board's 
investigation, Attorney Glynn never provided the Board with a 
copy of his client's files, despite several requests to do so, 
and did not respond timely to two requests from the Board for 
information about his conduct in the client's matter.  
¶12 The parties stipulated and the referee concluded that 
Attorney Glynn's action and inaction in the foregoing three 
matters constituted the following professional misconduct.  
 
No. 
99-2223-D 
 
7 
(a) His failure to pursue post-conviction relief 
diligently and timely on behalf of the client in the 
first matter violated SCR 20:1.3.1 
 
(b) His failure to respond to communications from 
that client and to requests from the State Public 
Defender and his failure to provide any meaningful 
representation after meeting with the client in the 
first matter violated SCR 20:1.4(a)2 – a failure to keep 
a client reasonably informed as to the status of a 
matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for 
information. 
 
(c) His failure to protect the client adequately 
against entry of a default judgment in the contractor 
lien matter, knowing a lawsuit was threatened, and his 
failure to take necessary steps to resolve or vacate 
that judgment violated SCR 20:1.3. 
 
(d) His failure to provide the client with a copy 
of a letter he had sent to opposing counsel, to inform 
the client of the status of his dealings with that 
counsel regarding resolution of the lien issue, and to 
communicate to his client about the entry of a default 
judgment violated SCR 20:1.4(a). 
 
(e) His failure to appear at or make any effort to 
reschedule a plea and sentencing hearing violated SCR 
20:1.3. 
 
(f) His failure to respond to letters from the 
Board 
and 
provide 
documents 
requested 
in 
its 
                     
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(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.  
 
No. 
99-2223-D 
 
8 
investigation timely or at all in each of the three 
matters violated SCR 21.03(4) and 22.07(2) and (3).3 
¶13 As discipline for that professional misconduct, the 
referee recommended, as the Board and Attorney Glynn had 
stipulated, that Attorney Glynn's license to practice law be 
suspended 
for 
nine 
months, 
consecutive 
to 
the 
one-year 
suspension imposed earlier, which was to expire June 14, 2000.  
The referee also recommended, as the parties had stipulated, 
                     
3 Former SCR 21.03(4), applicable to this proceeding, 
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. 
 
Former SCR 22.07(2) and (3), applicable to this proceeding, 
provided: 
 
(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 
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.  
 
(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.  
 
 
No. 
99-2223-D 
 
9 
that Attorney Glynn be required to pay the costs of the instant 
proceeding. 
¶14 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Charles Glynn to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for nine months, 
commencing June 14, 2000. 
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Charles Glynn pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation 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 Charles Glynn to practice law in 
Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of the 
court.  
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Charles Glynn comply with 
the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person 
whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended.   
¶17 WILLIAM A. BABLITCH and DAVID T. PROSSER, JR., JJ., 
did not participate. 
 
 
 
 
1