Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Christopher L. O'Byrne

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2001 WI 121 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
01-0765-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Christopher L. O'Byrne, Attorney at Law. 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, f/k/a Board  
of Attorneys Professional Responsibility,  
 
Complainant, 
 
v. 
Christopher L. O'Byrne,  
 
Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST O'BYRNE 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
November 21, 2001   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
2001 WI 121 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The 
final version will appear in the 
bound volume of the official 
reports.   
No.  01-0765-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Christopher L. O'Byrne, Attorney  
at Law. 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, f/k/a Board  
of Attorneys Professional Responsibility,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Christopher L. O'Byrne,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
NOV 21, 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 Attorney Christopher L. O'Byrne's license to 
practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for 60 days for 
professional misconduct in the handling of an estate.  The 
referee also recommended that Attorney O'Byrne be required to 
pay the costs of the proceeding. 
No. 
01-0765-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
We 
determine 
that 
the 
seriousness 
of 
Attorney 
O'Byrne's professional misconduct warrants a suspension of his 
license to practice law for 60 days. 
¶3 
Attorney O'Byrne was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1986 and practices in Port Washington.  In 1994 
Attorney O'Byrne consented to a public reprimand for misconduct 
consisting of engaging in conduct involving dishonesty and 
misrepresentation, 
failing 
to 
disclose facts 
necessary to 
correct a misapprehension, failing to fairly and fully disclose 
all facts and circumstances pertaining to an investigation, and 
failing to respond to a client's reasonable requests for 
information.  
¶4 
The complaint filed by the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) alleged misconduct with respect to Attorney O'Byrne's 
handling of an estate.1  The decedent died on November 22, 1995.  
An application for informal administration was filed on February 
15, 
1996. 
 
The 
decedent's 
son 
was 
appointed 
personal 
representative on March 18, 1996.  Attorney O'Byrne was retained 
as attorney for the estate.  The decedent's son died on April 
                                                 
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.  Even though 
most of the conduct giving rise to the complaint occurred prior 
to October 1, 2000, the investigative body will be referred to 
as the "OLR."  The references to supreme court rules will be to 
those currently in effect unless specifically noted. 
 
No. 
01-0765-D   
 
3 
 
17, 1996, and a successor personal representative was appointed 
on May 10, 1996.   
¶5 
The estate inventory was filed on November 18, 1996.  
The estate became delinquent in August of 1997.  On September 
24, 1997, an order to show cause why the estate was not closed 
was issued by the circuit court.  A series of orders to show 
cause were issued through January of 2001.  On March 13, 2001, 
over five years after the estate was opened, it still had not 
been closed.  The circuit court issued an order of removal 
discharging Attorney O'Byrne as attorney for the estate.  
¶6 
Attorney O'Byrne did not file an answer to the OLR's 
complaint.  In February 2001 the OLR filed a motion requesting 
issuance of an order to show cause why Attorney O'Byrne's 
license should not be suspended for his willful failure to 
cooperate or respond to two other grievances.  An order to show 
cause was issued.  Attorney O'Byrne failed to respond to the 
order to show cause.  On April 3, 2001, this court issued an 
order temporarily suspending Attorney O'Byrne's license to 
practice law for failing to respond or cooperate with the other 
OLR investigations.  That suspension remains in force.  
¶7 
On May 17, 2001, the OLR's motion for default judgment 
was heard.  Attorney O'Byrne's counsel stipulated that a default 
judgment could be entered.  The referee, John A. Fiorenza, 
issued a report concluding that Attorney O'Byrne failed to act 
with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing the 
No. 
01-0765-D   
 
4 
 
estate, thereby violating SCR 20:1.3.2  The referee also found 
that Attorney O'Byrne failed to cooperate with the OLR in the 
investigation of the grievance, thereby violating former SCR 
21.03(4)3 and former SCR 22.07(2) and (3).4   
¶8 
We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law.  Attorney O'Byrne's misconduct with respect 
to his handling of the estate and his failure to cooperate with 
the OLR's investigation are serious failings warranting a 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:1.3 provides that "[a] lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client."  
3 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." 
4 Former SCR 22.07(2) and (3) 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. 
01-0765-D   
 
5 
 
suspension of his license.  A 60-day suspension of his license 
to practice law is appropriate discipline for his professional 
misconduct.  
¶9 
IT IS ORDERED that the license of Christopher L. 
O'Byrne to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period 
of 60 days, effective December 26, 2001. 
¶10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Christopher L. O'Byrne 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended. 
¶11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Christopher L. O'Byrne pay to the OLR 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 Christopher L. 
O'Byrne to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended 
until further order of the court.  
No. 
01-0765-D   
 
 
 
1