Case Title: Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility v. Susan M. Cotten

Citation: 2001 WI 29

Docket Number: 2000AP002192-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2001-04-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
2001 WI 29 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
00-2192-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Susan M. Cotten, Attorney at Law. 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility,  
 
Complainant, 
 
v. 
Susan M. Cotten,  
 
Respondent.  
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST COTTON 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
April 4, 2001 
Submitted on Briefs: 
      
Oral Argument: 
      
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
      
 
Dissented: 
      
 
Not Participating: ABRAHAMSON, C.J., did not participate. 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
      
 
2001 WI 29 
 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear in 
the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No. 00-2192-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Susan M. Cotten, Attorney at  
Law. 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional  
Responsibility,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Susan M. Cotten,  
 
          Respondent.  
 
FILED 
 
APR 4, 2001 
 
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 Attorney Susan M. Cotten's license to practice law 
in Wisconsin be suspended for six months for professional 
misconduct.  That misconduct consists of 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 reasonable requests 
for information; failing to take steps to the extent reasonably 
practicable to protect the interests of a client; engaging in 
No. 
00-2192-D 
 
2 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit 
or 
misrepresentation; 
and 
failing 
to 
cooperate 
with 
the 
investigation 
of 
the 
Board 
of 
Attorneys 
Professional 
Responsibility (Board).1  The referee also recommended that 
Attorney Cotten be required to pay restitution, with interest, 
to two clients and that she pay the costs of the proceeding.  
¶2 
We determine that the seriousness of Attorney Cotten's 
professional misconduct warrants a suspension of her license to 
practice law for six months. 
¶3 
Attorney Cotten was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1995 and practices in Madison.  She has not 
previously 
been 
the 
subject 
of 
an 
attorney 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  She did not answer or otherwise appear in this 
disciplinary proceeding, and the referee, Judith Sperling-
Newton, made findings of fact and conclusions of law in response 
to the Board's motion for default judgment. 
¶4 
The Board's complaint alleged misconduct with respect 
to three former clients.  The first client hired Attorney Cotten 
as lead counsel to file a construction lawsuit.  The client paid 
                     
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. 
  
 
No. 
00-2192-D 
 
3 
Attorney Cotten a $500 retainer and the $182 filing fee.  The 
client's previous attorney was to serve as co-counsel in the 
case.  Although the client left numerous messages with Attorney 
Cotten inquiring about the status of the case, the client's 
messages were never answered and Attorney Cotten never drafted a 
complaint in the matter.  Attorney Cotten wrote to the client 
and 
co-counsel 
to 
indicate 
she 
was 
terminating 
her 
representation of the client and was returning the $182 filing 
fee.  Co-counsel received the letter but the client did not.  
The client learned about the termination letter from co-counsel 
and made several requests to Attorney Cotten for an accounting 
and/or return of the file.  Co-counsel eventually obtained the 
file from Attorney Cotten and Attorney Cotten eventually 
returned the retainer fee. 
¶5 
Attorney Cotten failed to respond to a letter from a 
Board staff investigator with respect to the first client's 
case.  She also failed to respond to a number of letters the 
Board staff sent to her by certified mail.  Attorney Cotten also 
failed 
to 
provide 
requested 
documents 
to 
the 
District 
Investigative Committee (DIC) investigators.  
¶6 
The second alleged charge of misconduct set forth in 
the complaint involved a family who hired Attorney Cotten to 
defend them in a lawsuit regarding an easement.  Attorney Cotten 
filed an answer to the complaint in the case but failed to 
appear at a telephone hearing.  The circuit court entered a 
default judgment awarding the plaintiff an ingress and egress 
easement over the clients' property.  The clients, believing 
No. 
00-2192-D 
 
4 
that Attorney Cotten had taken care of the matter, were unaware 
of the easement until a new owner purchased the adjoining 
property.   
¶7 
The clients subsequently hired Attorney Cotten to 
defend them in a foreclosure/replevin lawsuit and they paid her 
a $600 retainer.  Attorney Cotten filed an answer but never 
served it on plaintiff's counsel.  The circuit court issued 
foreclosure and replevin judgments in favor of the plaintiff in 
excess of $150,000.  One of the clients made multiple attempts 
to contact Attorney Cotten to file a motion to vacate the 
judgments.  Attorney Cotten did not initially return the 
clients' calls but eventually told them she had taken care of 
everything.  In fact Attorney Cotten had not succeeded in having 
the judgments vacated.  The clients hired successor counsel who 
was successful in having the judgments vacated.  The clients 
requested a return of their $600 retainer but Attorney Cotten 
failed to return it.  
¶8 
Attorney Cotten failed to respond to a letter from a 
Board staff investigator.  She also failed to respond to a 
subsequent letter that Board staff sent to her by certified 
mail, and she also failed to provide requested documents to DIC 
investigators. 
¶9 
The third matter alleged in the Board's complaint 
involved a couple who hired Attorney Cotten to prepare wills for 
them.  The couple executed the wills and paid Attorney Cotten 
$500.  She retained the original wills and did not give the 
clients copies.  The clients repeatedly requested copies of 
No. 
00-2192-D 
 
5 
their wills but Attorney Cotten failed to respond to their 
letters or telephone calls.   
¶10 Attorney Cotten failed to respond to a letter from a 
Board staff investigator requesting a response to the clients' 
grievance.  Subsequent investigative letters, including one sent 
by certified mail, also went unanswered.  Attorney Cotten did 
not follow through with a promise to DIC investigators that she 
would provide the clients with copies of the wills.  She also 
did not return the $500 payment she received from the clients. 
¶11 Attorney Cotten was served with an order to answer and 
complaint in this proceeding on August 14, 2000, by a Dane 
county deputy sheriff.  The clerk of this court mailed her a 
notice on September 11, 2000, reminding her of her requirement 
to file an answer to the complaint.  On September 14, 2000, 
Board counsel filed a motion for default judgment and supporting 
affidavit.  
¶12 The 
referee 
left 
messages 
with 
Attorney 
Cotten 
attempting to schedule a telephone status conference in the 
matter.  Attorney Cotten never responded to the messages.  On 
September 
27, 
2000, 
the 
referee 
conducted 
the 
scheduled 
telephone status conference.  Although the referee attempted to 
reach Attorney Cotten, she was unable to do so. 
¶13 The referee concluded that by failing to file suit on 
behalf of the first client, by failing to appear at a telephone 
hearing and by failing to serve an answer on plaintiffs' counsel 
in a foreclosure/replevin case, which resulted in judgments of 
foreclosure and replevin against the second clients, and by 
No. 
00-2192-D 
 
6 
failing to properly serve motions to vacate the judgments, 
Attorney Cotten violated SCR 20:1.3.2 
¶14 The referee also concluded that by failing to keep the 
first and second clients reasonably informed about the status of 
a matter, failing to comply with reasonable requests for 
information, and failing to respond to her clients' requests for 
information, Attorney Cotten violated SCR 20:1.4(a).3 
¶15 The referee further concluded that by failing, upon 
termination of representation, to take steps to the extent 
reasonably practicable to protect the interests of the first and 
third clients, including giving reasonable notice to the client, 
surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled 
and refunding any advance payment of fees that had not been 
earned, Attorney Cotten violated SCR 20:1.16(d).4  The referee 
                     
2  SCR 20:1.3 provides: Diligence  
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in representing a client. 
3  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.  
 
4  SCR 20:1.16(d) provides: 
 
No. 
00-2192-D 
 
7 
also concluded that by reassuring the second clients that 
everything had been taken care of in their foreclosure/replevin 
lawsuit when, in fact, she had failed to properly serve 
plaintiff's counsel with motions to vacate judgments against her 
clients, 
Attorney 
Cotten 
engaged 
in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, in violation SCR 
20:1.4(c).5   
¶16 The referee also concluded that by failing to respond 
to letters from staff and failing to respond to the DIC's 
request for documents, Attorney Cotten violated SCR 21.03(4)6 and 
SCR 22.07(2) and (3).7   
                                                                  
(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 20:8.4(c) provides: 
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:  
 
(c)  engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation;  
 
6  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. 
7  Former SCR 22.07(2) and (3) provided: 
No. 
00-2192-D 
 
8 
¶17 The referee concluded that Attorney Cotten was in 
default in the disciplinary proceeding as a result of her 
failure to provide an answer within 20 days from the date of 
service of the complaint, pursuant to SCR 22.12(2).8 
¶18 We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law 
set forth in the referee's amended report and recommendation.  
Attorney Cotten's misconduct with respect to her handling of the 
three client matters and her failure to cooperate with the 
Board's 
investigation 
are 
serious 
failings 
warranting 
a 
                                                                  
(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.  
8  Former SCR 22.12(2) provided: 
 
(2)  A respondent may by answer plead no contest to 
allegations of misconduct in the complaint. The referee shall 
make a determination of misconduct in respect to each allegation 
to which no contest is pleaded and for which the referee finds an 
adequate 
factual 
basis 
in 
the 
record. 
In 
a 
subsequent 
disciplinary 
or 
reinstatement 
proceeding, 
it 
shall 
be 
conclusively presumed that the respondent engaged in misconduct 
determined on the basis of a no contest plea.  
 
No. 
00-2192-D 
 
9 
suspension of her license.  A six-month suspension of her 
license to practice law is appropriate discipline for her 
professional misconduct.  
¶19 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Susan M. Cotten to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of six 
months, effective May 8, 2001. 
¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Susan M. Cotten comply with 
the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person 
whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. 
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Susan M. Cotten refund, 
within 60 days of the date of this order, with interest at 5%, 
the 
$600 
retainer 
paid 
by 
the 
second 
clients 
for 
her 
representation in a foreclosure/replevin matter and the $500 
retainer paid by the third clients for her work in the execution 
of their wills.  If these refunds are not made within the 
specified time, the license of Susan M. Cotten to practice law 
in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of the 
court. 
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Susan M. Cotten 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 Susan M. Cotten to practice law in Wisconsin shall 
remain suspended until further order of the court. 
¶23 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J., did not participate. 
 
 
1