Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Matthew O. Olaiya

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2001 WI 116 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
00-3352-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Matthew O. Olaiya, Attorney at Law. 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, f/k/a Board of 
Attorneys Professional Responsibility,  
 
Complainant, 
 
v. 
Matthew O. Olaiya,  
 
Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST OLAIYA 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 30, 2001   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2001 WI 116 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The 
final version will appear in the 
bound volume of the official 
reports.   
No.  00-3352-D  
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Matthew O. Olaiya, Attorney at  
Law. 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, f/k/a Board  
of Attorneys Professional Responsibility,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Matthew O. Olaiya,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
OCT 30, 2001  
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
¶1 
PER CURIAM   We review the recommendation of the 
referee that the license of Attorney Matthew O. Olaiya to 
practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for six months for 
professional misconduct.  That misconduct consists of abandoning 
the practice of law; failing to take steps to protect the 
interests of a client; failing to return an advance payment of a 
fee that has not been earned; 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; 
No. 
00-3352-D   
 
2 
 
failing to cooperate with the investigation of the Board of 
Attorneys 
Professional 
Responsibility 
(Board)1 
in 
the 
investigation of a grievance; failing to provide full and fair 
information regarding the 
circumstances 
pertaining to the 
alleged misconduct; failing to comply with reasonable requests 
for information; making a misrepresentation in a disclosure to 
the 
Board; 
and 
revealing 
information 
relating 
to 
the 
representation of a client without the client's consent.  In 
addition to the license suspension, the referee recommended that 
Attorney Olaiya pay restitution to two clients and that he pay 
the costs of the proceeding. 
¶2 
We determine that the seriousness of Attorney Olaiya's 
professional misconduct warrants a six-month suspension of his 
license to practice law in Wisconsin and we adopt the referee's 
recommendations. 
¶3 
Attorney Olaiya was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1984.  The misconduct described herein occurred in 
connection with Attorney Olaiya's prolonged absence from the 
United States.  On or about June 25, 1999, Attorney Olaiya left 
Wisconsin for an indefinite stay in Lagos, Nigeria, without 
                                                 
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 (OLR) and the supreme court rules applicable 
to the lawyer regulation system were also revised.  Since most 
of the conduct giving rise to the complaint occurred prior to 
October 1, 2000, the investigative body will be referred to as 
"the Board."  However, the references to supreme court rules 
will be to those currently in effect unless specifically noted. 
 
No. 
00-3352-D   
 
3 
 
prior notice to his clients.  He thereafter closed his law 
office in August 1999, again, without prior notice to his 
clients.  Attorney Olaiya apparently returned to Wisconsin 
briefly in December 1999, but departed the United States on 
January 24, 2000.  Attorney Olaiya has not returned to Wisconsin 
and currently resides in Nigeria.   
¶4 
By April 2000, the Board had received three grievances 
from clients of Attorney Olaiya.  A fourth grievance was filed 
against Attorney Olaiya on May 23, 2000.   
¶5 
In December 2000, the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) filed a complaint against Attorney Olaiya alleging some 
fourteen separate violations of supreme court rules based on 
Attorney Olaiya's alleged professional misconduct with respect 
to four client matters.  Attorney Olaiya filed an answer, which 
was later stricken for his failure to comply with a discovery 
order. 
¶6 
The first grievance involved a client who hired 
Attorney Olaiya to assist with obtaining a visa to enable the 
client's fiancée to enter the United States.  The client paid 
Attorney Olaiya a $700 retainer.  Attorney Olaiya filed the 
necessary documents but then told the client that he would be 
"on vacation" for several weeks.  After Attorney Olaiya departed 
for Nigeria, the Department of Immigration and Naturalization 
Services (INS) returned the visa application to Attorney 
Olaiya's office indicating that it required some additional 
information before it could be processed.  Attorney Olaiya did 
not advise his client of this development.  He made no 
No. 
00-3352-D   
 
4 
 
arrangements to have the work done.  Several months later the 
client learned of the problem with the visa application and 
filed a grievance with the Board.  Attorney Olaiya did not 
return the retainer fee. 
¶7 
Attorney Olaiya failed to respond to a letter from a 
Board staff investigator with respect to this client's case.  He 
also failed to timely respond to a letter the Board staff sent 
to him by certified mail. He responded belatedly to the 
grievance in an e-mail message dated June 30, 2000, but his 
response did not address the specific allegations of misconduct.  
After being notified by the Board that his response was 
insufficient, Attorney Olaiya sent another e-mail message, 
maintaining that his initial response was adequate.   
¶8 
The second matter involved a client who hired Attorney 
Olaiya to file the necessary documentation to effectuate a 
change in the client's non-resident alien status. The client 
prepaid Attorney Olaiya $350 for this service.  Attorney Olaiya 
filed the necessary documents and initially communicated with 
the client regarding the status of the matter.  However, in mid-
August 1999, the client learned that Attorney Olaiya had left 
the country, indefinitely.  The client repeatedly tried to 
contact Attorney Olaiya regarding the status of his case, 
without success.  Attorney Olaiya failed to respond to the 
client's messages and failed to comply with the client's request 
that Attorney Olaiya transfer the file to another attorney. 
¶9 
Attorney Olaiya failed to respond to a letter from a 
Board staff investigator regarding this grievance.  He belatedly 
No. 
00-3352-D   
 
5 
 
responded to this grievance in his e-mail message of June 30, 
2000, but generally denied the client's allegations.  Again, 
after being notified by the Board that his response to the 
grievance was insufficient, Attorney Olaiya sent a follow-up e-
mail maintaining that his initial response was adequate.   
¶10 The third matter involved a corporate client that 
hired Attorney Olaiya to assist a company employee with an 
immigration matter.  The client directed Attorney Olaiya to take 
the steps necessary to permit the company's employee, a Mexican 
citizen, to remain lawfully in the United States and employed by 
the company.  Specifically, Attorney Olaiya was directed to 
extend the employee's I-94 authorization, to file a petition to 
extend the employee's status as a non-immigrant worker, and to 
help her obtain permanent resident status.  Attorney Olaiya was 
also retained to file certain immigration documents on behalf of 
the employee's husband, also a Mexican citizen.  The client paid 
Attorney Olaiya $2000 as partial prepayment for these legal 
services. 
¶11 Attorney Olaiya failed to file any request to extend 
the employee's I-94 authorization.  He failed to respond to the 
Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development's (DWD) requests 
for information.  Because of Attorney Olaiya's inaction, the DWD 
closed the file.  Attorney Olaiya failed to inform his client 
that the file was closed due to his inaction.  Instead, Attorney 
Olaiya asked DWD to reopen the file and, when the client 
requested a status report, Attorney Olaiya informed the client 
that the DWD had "not gotten" to the case.  Attorney Olaiya also 
No. 
00-3352-D   
 
6 
 
failed 
to 
respond 
to 
several 
other 
agency 
requests 
for 
information regarding this matter and failed to respond to the 
client's repeated inquiries regarding the status of the matter.  
Eventually the client filed a grievance.   
¶12 Attorney Olaiya failed to respond to a letter from a 
Board staff investigator requesting a response to this client's 
grievance.  Attorney Olaiya also failed to timely respond to a 
subsequent investigative letter sent by certified mail.  In his 
e-mail message to the Board dated June 30, 2000, Attorney Olaiya 
did not address the specific allegations of misconduct other 
than to generally deny any wrongdoing with respect to this 
client.  Again, after being notified by the Board that his 
response to the grievance was insufficient, Attorney Olaiya sent 
a follow-up e-mail maintaining that his initial response was 
adequate. 
¶13 The fourth matter involved a client who hired Attorney 
Olaiya to represent the client's sister with respect to her 
application for political asylum.  The client paid Attorney 
Olaiya a $2500 retainer to provide representation at an asylum 
hearing scheduled for October 21, 1999, in the State of 
Minnesota.  The client flew to Minnesota for the asylum hearing 
but no one appeared on the client's behalf and the hearing had 
No. 
00-3352-D   
 
7 
 
to be canceled.2  Attorney Olaiya failed to respond to the 
client's follow-up telephone calls or to the client's request 
that Olaiya refund the retainer and reimburse the client's 
travel expenses.  Attorney Olaiya did not return the retainer in 
this matter, nor did he reimburse the client for the travel 
expenses incurred traveling to the hearing. 
¶14 By letter dated June 6, 2000, the Board notified 
Attorney Olaiya of the grievance filed in connection with this 
matter and requested a written response within twenty days.  
Attorney Olaiya responded in the June 30, 2000, e-mail message, 
claiming that he had performed all the services for which he was 
paid and claiming that the client was uncooperative, owed him 
money and had not responded to his calls or letters.  The e-mail 
response did not address Attorney Olaiya's failure to appear at 
the hearing.  Attorney Olaiya provided no verification for his 
claims that the client was uncooperative.3  After being notified 
by 
the 
Board 
that 
his 
response 
to 
the 
grievance 
was 
insufficient, Attorney Olaiya sent a follow-up e-mail message 
maintaining that his initial response was adequate. 
                                                 
2 Attorney 
Olaiya 
apparently 
commenced 
but 
failed 
to 
complete arrangements to have a Minnesota lawyer appear at the 
hearing.  He sent an e-mail to a Minnesota attorney several 
months before the hearing asking if she accepted referrals.  The 
attorney specifically requested that Attorney Olaiya contact her 
if he wished her to handle the matter.  Months later the 
client's file was simply dropped off at the Minnesota attorney's 
office one day before the scheduled hearing.   
 
3 Indeed, the referee later found that the cancelled check 
and retainer agreement demonstrated that Attorney Olaiya's claim 
that this client owed Attorney Olaiya money was false and 
misleading.   
No. 
00-3352-D   
 
8 
 
¶15 Thereafter Attorney Olaiya failed to respond to the 
Board's discovery requests and failed to appear for his 
deposition although written notice was sent to him in Wisconsin 
and Nigeria.  The Board filed a motion to compel Attorney 
Olaiya’s 
compliance 
with 
discovery 
in 
this 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
¶16 Following a hearing on the motion to compel at which 
Attorney Olaiya did not appear, the referee entered an order 
requiring Attorney Olaiya to respond to outstanding discovery 
requests and to appear for his deposition.  This order further 
advised Attorney Olaiya that his failure to comply with the 
order without good cause would result in the issuance of an 
order striking his answer and causing the issuance of findings 
of fact and conclusions of law and a recommendation based on the 
allegations in the complaint.  Attorney Olaiya wholly failed to 
comply with the order. 
¶17 Attorney Olaiya did not appear at the final scheduling 
conference on May 29, 2001.  Accordingly, the referee issued an 
order striking the answer and issued findings of fact and 
conclusions of law consistent with the complaint.   
¶18 The referee concluded that by abandoning his law 
practice and thereby failing to protect his clients' interests 
upon termination of representation with respect to the first and 
second client, and by failing to return the second client's 
No. 
00-3352-D   
 
9 
 
advance payments of fees that had not been earned, Attorney 
Olaiya violated SCR 20:1.16(d).4    
¶19 The referee also concluded that by failing to notify 
the first, third, and fourth clients of various agency demands 
for further information and/or the need for revisions to filed 
documents, Attorney Olaiya violated SCR 20:1.3.5  
¶20 The referee also found that by failing to keep the 
first, second, and third clients reasonably informed regarding 
the status of their respective legal matters, Attorney Olaiya 
violated SCR 20:1.4(a).6 
¶21 The referee found further that by failing to cooperate 
with the Board's investigation of each of the four grievances 
Attorney Olaiya violated (former) SCR 21.03(4).7 
                                                 
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. 
5 SCR 20:1.3 provides that "[a] lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
6 SCR 20:1.4(a) provides that "[a] lawyer shall keep a 
client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and 
promptly comply with reasonable requests for information." 
7 Former SCR 21.03(4) provided that "[e]very 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." 
No. 
00-3352-D   
 
10 
 
¶22 In addition, the referee found that by failing to 
provide full and fair information regarding the circumstances 
pertaining to the alleged misconduct in each of the four 
grievances, Attorney Olaiya violated (former) SCR 22.07(2).8 
¶23 Finally the referee concluded that by causing the 
fourth client's file to be delivered to another attorney without 
the client's consent, Attorney Olaiya revealed information 
relating to the representation of a client without the client's 
consent in violation of SCR 20:1.6.9 
                                                 
8 Former SCR 22.07(2) provided:  
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. 
9 SCR 20:1.6 provides:  Confidentiality of information 
 
(a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to 
representation of a client unless the client consents after 
consultation, 
except 
for 
disclosures 
that 
are 
impliedly 
authorized in order to carry out the representation, and except 
as stated in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d). 
(b) A lawyer shall reveal such information to the extent 
the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to prevent the client 
from committing a criminal or fraudulent act that the lawyer 
reasonably believes is likely to result in death or substantial 
bodily harm or in substantial injury to the financial interest 
or property of another. 
(c) A lawyer may reveal such information to the extent the 
lawyer reasonably believes necessary: 
No. 
00-3352-D   
 
11 
 
¶24 The referee then concluded that a six-month license 
suspension was appropriate. The referee also recommended that 
Attorney Olaiya pay restitution in the amount of $700 to the 
first client, reflecting the retainer paid by the client for 
representation with respect to the fiancée visa matter, as well 
as $2500 to the fourth client reflecting the retainer accepted 
for his work in the political asylum matter plus an additional 
$1000 for the travel expenses incurred by the client in 
connection with the hearing at which Attorney Olaiya failed to 
appear.  The referee did not assess restitution with respect to 
the other two clients.  The referee also recommended that 
Attorney Olaiya pay the costs of this proceeding. 
¶25 We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law and determine that to be the appropriate 
discipline for Attorney Olaiya's professional misconduct. We 
also hold that payment of the restitution shall be treated as a 
condition of the reinstatement of Attorney Olaiya's license. 
                                                                                                                                                             
(1) to rectify the consequences of a client's criminal or 
fraudulent act in the furtherance of which the lawyer's services 
had been used; 
(2) to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer 
in a controversy between the lawyer and the client, to establish 
a defense to a criminal charge or civil claim against the lawyer 
based upon conduct in which the client was involved, or to 
respond to allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer's 
representation of the client. 
(d) This rule does not prohibit a lawyer from revealing the 
name or identity of a client to comply with ss. 19.43 and 19.44, 
Stats. 1985-86, the code of ethics for public officials and 
employees. 
No. 
00-3352-D   
 
12 
 
Attorney Olaiya's misconduct with respect to his handling of the 
four client matters and his failure to cooperate with the 
Board's 
investigation 
are 
serious 
failings 
warranting 
a 
suspension of his license.  A six-month suspension of his 
license to practice law is appropriate discipline for his 
professional misconduct.   
¶26 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Matthew O. Olaiya to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of six 
months, effective December 4, 2001. 
¶27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Matthew O. Olaiya comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a 
person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended. 
¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Matthew O. Olaiya refund 
$700 to the first client, and that he refund $2500 to the fourth 
client.  In addition, he shall reimburse the fourth client $1000 
for travel expenses.  If these refunds and reimbursement are not 
made within 60 days from the date of this order, the license of 
Matthew O. Olaiya to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain 
suspended until further order of the court. 
¶29 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Matthew O. Olaiya 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 his inability to pay the costs within that time, the 
license of Matthew O. Olaiya to practice law in Wisconsin shall 
remain suspended until further order of the court. 
No. 
00-3352-D   
 
 
 
1