Case Title: Jeffrey J. Grady v.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1996AP000514-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 1996-06-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 96-0514-D 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
 
 
 
 
No.  96-0514-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN             :                IN SUPREME COURT 
                                                                   
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against JEFFREY J. GRADY, Attorney at Law. 
 
FILED 
 
 
JUN 21, 1996 
 
 
 Marilyn L. Graves 
  Clerk of Supreme Court 
  
Madison, WI  
 
                                                                
   
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
 
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the referee 
that the license of Jeffrey J. Grady to practice law in Wisconsin 
be suspended for six months as discipline for professional 
misconduct.  Attorney Grady failed to provide competent and 
diligent representation to a client in a worker's compensation 
matter, failed to respond timely to the client's request for 
information 
concerning 
the 
status 
of 
that 
matter 
and 
misrepresented its status to the client, failed to inform the 
client that he had left employment at the law firm where the 
client expected to contact him, and failed to transfer the 
 
No. 96-0514-D 
 
 
 
2 
client's file to successor counsel as requested.  In an unrelated 
matter, Attorney Grady failed to inform a client that his license 
had been suspended by the court.   We 
determine 
that 
the 
seriousness of that misconduct, in light of prior discipline 
imposed on him, warrants the suspension of Attorney Grady's 
license to practice law for six months.  He has repeatedly 
demonstrated a propensity to neglect the legal matters for which 
he had been retained and to fail to diligently pursue the 
interests of his clients in those matters.   
 
Attorney Grady was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in 
1979 and practiced in Madison.  In 1992 the court publicly 
reprimanded him for failing to act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness in prosecuting an action he had brought on behalf of 
several clients, which resulted in its dismissal on the merits, 
and for failing to respond to repeated requests from the Board of 
Attorneys Professional Responsibility (Board) for information in 
its investigation of the matter.  Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Grady, 172 Wis. 2d 185, 493 N.W.2d 66 (1992).  In 1994, the court 
suspended his license for 60 days for failing to exercise 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing clients, 
entering into a prohibited business transaction with a client, and 
failing to hold in a trust account a client's share of estate 
distributions.  Disciplinary Proceedings Against Grady, 188 Wis. 
2d 98, 523 N.W.2d 564.  Because he did not pay the costs of that 
 
No. 96-0514-D 
 
 
 
3 
proceeding as ordered and file the affidavit of compliance 
required for reinstatement, his license remains suspended.   
 
In November, 1994, the Board publicly reprimanded Attorney 
Grady, with his consent, for failing to appear at a show cause 
hearing regarding his delay in a probate matter, failing to record 
deeds executed by the personal representative for more than 15 
months and failing to file the estate inventory and prepare and 
file other documents necessary to close the estate timely.  That 
misconduct had not been brought to the Board's attention while the 
1994 disciplinary proceeding was pending.   
 
Attorney Grady elected not to file an answer to the Board's 
complaint in this proceeding and the referee, Attorney John 
Schweitzer, made findings of fact based on that complaint.  The 
first matter concerned Attorney Grady's conduct in representing a 
client who had retained him in August, 1987 to pursue a worker's 
compensation claim.  In the course of that representation, 
Attorney Grady assured the school where the client was pursuing a 
retraining program that full payment of the cost of that training 
would be made prior to the client's completion of the program, and 
he assured the client's health care providers who had provided 
treatment of the client's injury that they would be paid out of 
the anticipated worker's compensation settlement.  However, when 
the client was prepared to graduate from the retraining program in 
February, 1991, full payment had not been made and his final 
grades were withheld.  Moreover, in April, 1991, the client began 
 
No. 96-0514-D 
 
 
 
4 
receiving collection notices from the health care providers who 
had not been paid.   
 
No. 96-0514-D 
 
 
 
5 
 
When the client met with Attorney Grady in the spring of 1991 
concerning these matters, Attorney Grady assured him that he would 
take care of the collection notices.  He also had the client sign 
an application for a hearing on the client's claim, which Attorney 
Grady said he would file.  In August, 1991, the client began 
receiving summonses and complaints in civil actions filed by nine 
health care providers seeking compensation for the care they had 
provided him.  The client turned those matters over to Attorney 
Grady, who told him he would notify the courts in which they had 
been filed that they were awaiting a hearing date on the client's 
claim.  Attorney Grady did not defend those actions on the 
client's behalf and judgments were obtained against the client.  
Beginning in April, 1992, the client's wages were garnished as a 
result of those judgments.   
 
The client again met with Attorney Grady in May, 1992, and 
Attorney Grady had him sign another application for a hearing date 
because the prior application had become stale.  The following 
July, Attorney Grady had the client sign yet another application 
for a hearing because the most recent application had been 
misplaced.   
 
In the fall of 1992, while his pay checks continued to be 
garnished, the client tried unsuccessfully to contact Attorney 
Grady to learn the status of his claim.  Attorney Grady did not 
return those calls until April, 1993, when he told the client that 
everything was "under control" and that he expected to obtain a 
 
No. 96-0514-D 
 
 
 
6 
hearing date soon.  In December, 1993, after leaving several 
messages at the law firm where Attorney Grady had been practicing, 
the client learned from the firm that he no longer worked there 
and the firm did not know where to reach him.   
 
In March, 1994, the client obtained other counsel to 
represent him on the worker's compensation claim, which Attorney 
Grady had never filed.  The following May, the client filed 
bankruptcy and his debts were discharged.  In January, 1995, after 
learning that Attorney Grady had never turned over his case file 
to his new counsel, the client left several messages with Attorney 
Grady's answering service and when he eventually reached him, was 
told that Attorney Grady would forward the file the following 
week.  However, Attorney Grady did not do so until the following 
May.   
 
The referee also found that, in an unrelated matter, Attorney 
Grady never informed a client he was representing until at least 
July, 1995 that his license to practice law had been suspended by 
the court, effective January 16, 1995, as discipline for 
professional misconduct.   
 
On the basis of those facts, the referee concluded as 
follows.  By failing to file an application for a hearing on the 
client's compensation claim or otherwise act in the matter and by 
agreeing to act on the client's behalf in defending the collection 
efforts of the client's health care providers, Attorney Grady 
failed to provide the client competent representation, in 
 
No. 96-0514-D 
 
 
 
7 
violation of SCR 20:1.1,1 and did not act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing the client, in violation 
of SCR 20:1.3.2  His failure to respond promptly to the client's 
telephone calls and requests for information concerning the status 
of his legal matter, providing inaccurate information that 
everything was under control and that he expected to obtain a 
hearing date soon, and failing to tell the client he had left 
employment with the firm where the client had been trying to reach 
him violated SCR 20:1.4(a).3 Attorney Grady's failure to forward 
the client's file to successor counsel promptly at the client's 
request violated SCR 20:1.16(d).4  Finally, his failure to inform 
                     
     1  SCR 20:1.1 provides:  Competence 
 
A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. 
 Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, 
thoroughness 
and 
preparation 
reasonably 
necessary 
for 
the 
representation.   
     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 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.   
     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.   
 
No. 96-0514-D 
 
 
 
8 
at least one of his clients of the license suspension imposed by 
this court in a prior proceeding violated SCR 22.26(1)(a).5   
 
As discipline for that misconduct, the referee recommended 
that the court suspend Attorney Grady's license to practice law 
for six months.  The referee determined that in order to protect 
the public from Attorney Grady in the event he ever should seek to 
practice law again, a six-month license suspension is required, as 
it will require Attorney Grady to establish in a reinstatement 
proceeding that he is again fit to be licensed to practice law.  
The referee also recommended that Attorney Grady be required to 
pay the costs of this proceeding.   
 
We adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of 
law and determine that a six-month license suspension is 
appropriate discipline to impose for Attorney Grady's professional 
misconduct established in this proceeding.   
 
IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Jeffrey J. Grady 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of six 
months, effective the date of this order.   
                     
     5  SCR 22.26 provides, in pertinent part:   
 
Activities on revocation or suspension of license. 
 
(1)(a)  A disbarred or suspended attorney on or before the 
effective date of disbarment or suspension shall:   
 
1.  Notify, by certified mail, all clients being represented 
in pending matters of the disbarment or suspension and consequent 
inability to act as an attorney after the effective date of the 
disbarment or suspension.   
 
2.  Advise the clients to seek legal advice of the client's 
own choice elsewhere.   
 
No. 96-0514-D 
 
 
 
9 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this 
order Jeffrey J. Grady 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 Jeffrey J. Grady to practice law in Wisconsin shall 
remain suspended until further order of the court.   
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Jeffrey J. Grady comply with the 
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose 
license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended.   
 
No. 96-0514-D 
 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
                                                              
 
Case No.: 
 
96-0514-D 
                                                              
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary 
 
 
 
Proceedings Against 
 
 
 
Jeffrey J. Grady, 
 
 
 
Attorney at Law. 
 
 
 
______________________________ 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GRADY 
 
                                                              
 
Opinion Filed:  
June 21, 1996 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
                                                              
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
                                                              
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating: 
 
                                                              
 
ATTORNEYS: