Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Thomas J. Fink

Citation: 2001 WI 72

Docket Number: 2000AP003082-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2001-06-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
2001 WI 72 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
00-3082-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Thomas J. Fink, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, f/k/a Board of 
Attorneys Professional Responsibility,  
 
Complainant, 
 
v. 
Thomas J. Fink,  
 
Respondent.  
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST FINK 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
June 28, 2001 
Submitted on Briefs: 
      
Oral Argument: 
      
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
      
 
Dissented: 
      
 
Not Participating:       
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
      
 
2001 WI 72 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear 
in the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No. 00-3082-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN                    :  
  IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Thomas J. Fink, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, f/k/a Board  
of Attorneys Professional Responsibility,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Thomas J. Fink,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
 
Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.  
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM   We review the recommendation of the 
referee that Attorney Thomas J. Fink receive a public reprimand 
for professional misconduct and that he pay the costs of this 
proceeding. 
¶2 
The misconduct consists of failing to provide a client 
with legal materials which the client requested, failing to keep 
the client reasonably informed of the status of his case, 
failing to promptly reply to reasonable requests from the client 
for information, failing to take steps reasonably practical to 
FILED 
 
JUN 28, 2001 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
 
No. 
00-3082-D 
 
 
2 
protect the client's interest, and failing to cooperate with the 
investigation 
of 
the 
Board 
of 
Attorneys 
Professional 
Responsibility (Board) including the misrepresentation of facts 
during the process. 
¶3 
We determine that the seriousness of Attorney Fink's 
professional misconduct warrants a public reprimand.  
¶4 
Attorney Fink was admitted to the practice of law in 
Wisconsin in 1963.  In 1998 he was appointed by the state public 
defender to represent a client at a probation revocation 
proceeding.  In the course of this representation, Attorney Fink 
was supplied with documents relating to the state's request for 
revocation.  On four separate occasions the client requested 
that Attorney Fink provide him with a copy of these documents 
and on each occasion he failed to do so although he did later 
provide the client with the materials. 
¶5 
After Attorney Fink's legal representation of the 
client had terminated, the client requested copies of all 
materials relating to the case.  Attorney Fink received the 
request but did not respond to it. 
¶6 
The client subsequently filed a notice of grievance 
with the Board.  Attorney Fink was twice directed to file a 
written response but did not reply.  When the Board's district 
investigative committee eventually questioned Attorney Fink, he 
indicated that he viewed the documents requested by his client 
as being unimportant and that when his representation of the 
client ended he believed it was not his obligation to respond to 
the client's request for additional documents.  Attorney Fink 
No. 
00-3082-D 
 
 
3 
also misrepresented to the committee the date on which he 
provided the client with a copy of the appeal of the adverse 
ruling in the revocation proceeding and whether he had placed a 
block on collect calls on his telephone to keep his client from 
contacting him.  
¶7 
On November 14, 2000, the Board commenced this 
disciplinary proceeding with the filing of a complaint and an 
order to answer.  The complaint alleged that Attorney Fink 
engaged in five counts of professional misconduct. 
¶8 
First, the Board alleged that Attorney Fink violated 
SCR 20:1.4(a)1 by failing to provide his client with a copy of 
the revocation documents, by failing to keep the client 
reasonably informed of the status of the probation revocation 
proceeding, and by failing to promptly reply to reasonable 
requests by the client for information. 
                     
1  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. 
00-3082-D 
 
 
4 
¶9 
Second, the Board alleged that Attorney Fink violated 
former SCR 21.03(4)2 and former SCR 22.07(2)3 by failing to 
cooperate with the Board's investigation and misrepresenting 
facts in the course of it. 
¶10 Third, the Board alleged that Attorney Fink violated 
SCR 20:1.16(d)4 by failing to provide his client with a copy of 
the file after the probation revocation proceeding was completed 
                     
2  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. 
3  Former SCR 22.07(2) 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.  
 
4  SCR 20:1.16(d) provides: 
(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.  
 
No. 
00-3082-D 
 
 
5 
and in general failing to take reasonable practical steps to 
protect the client's interests. 
¶11 Fourth, the Board alleged that Attorney Fink violated 
former SCR 21.03(4) and former SCR 22.07(2) by failing to 
respond to the Board's two letters of inquiry. 
¶12 Fifth, the Board alleged that Attorney Fink violated 
former SCR 21.03(4) and former SCR 22.07(2) by misrepresenting 
to the committee that he had not placed a block on collect calls 
to his telephone when in fact he had done so. 
¶13 Attorney 
Fink 
admitted 
service 
of 
the 
Board's 
complaint and subsequently filed an answer.  John E. Shannon, 
Jr., was appointed by this court as referee. 
¶14 Attorney Fink and the Office of Lawyer Regulation, as 
the successor to the Board, subsequently entered into a 
stipulation in which Attorney Fink agreed that he had committed 
the five counts and that the public reprimand sought by the 
Board, along with the imposition of costs, was an appropriate 
level of discipline.  The referee then issued findings of fact, 
conclusions 
of 
law, 
and 
a 
recommendation, 
adopting 
the 
stipulation and the Board's complaint.   
¶15 We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law and determine, in accordance with the 
referee's recommendation and the stipulation of the parties, 
that the appropriate discipline for Attorney Fink's professional 
misconduct is a public reprimand.  His actions with respect to 
his client and the Board's investigation constituted substantial 
professional misconduct warranting a public reprimand. 
No. 
00-3082-D 
 
 
6 
¶16 IT IS ORDERED that Attorney Thomas J. Fink be publicly 
reprimanded for his professional misconduct. 
¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Attorney Thomas J. Fink pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding in the amount of 
$1057.17.  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 Attorney Thomas J. Fink 
to practice law in Wisconsin shall be suspended until further 
order of the court.  
No. 
00-3082-D 
 
 
1