Title: Michael B. Sandy v.

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

No. 95-1584-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.  95-1584-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN             :                IN SUPREME COURT 
                                                                   
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against MICHAEL B. SANDY, Attorney at Law. 
 
FILED 
 
 
APR 30, 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 Michael B. Sandy to practice law in Wisconsin 
be suspended for nine months as discipline for professional 
misconduct.  That misconduct consisted of his attempt to represent 
a person in a matter adverse to a client he was representing in a 
criminal matter, gaining access to a minor's confidential 
children's court file without court authority by misrepresenting 
that he was the minor's attorney, misrepresenting to the court the 
source of his information regarding the minor's prior sexual 
assault allegations, failing to keep a client reasonably informed 
 
No. 95-1584-D 
 
 
 
2 
of the status of his case and refusing to take delivery of the 
client's certified letter, and using cocaine with a client.  In 
addition to the license suspension, the referee recommended that 
Attorney Sandy be required to submit to random drug testing for a 
period of two years, with the results of those tests reported to 
the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (Board).   
 
We determine that the seriousness of the professional 
misconduct established in this proceeding warrants discipline more 
severe than that recommended by the referee.  Attorney Sandy used 
cocaine on several occasions with a client he was representing in 
a criminal matter, and it was the client who supplied the illegal 
drug. 
 
That 
and 
his 
other 
misconduct, 
particularly 
his 
misrepresentations to a court regarding the source of information 
he had obtained by making misrepresentations to court personnel, 
warrant the suspension of his license for one year.  In addition, 
it is appropriate to impose conditions directed to Attorney 
Sandy's continued rehabilitation from alcoholism and drug abuse.   
 
Attorney Sandy was admitted to the practice of law in 
Wisconsin in 1989 and practices in Oak Creek.  He has not 
previously been the subject of a disciplinary proceeding but has 
been suspended from the practice of law since November 1, 1995 for 
failure to pay State Bar membership dues.  The referee in this 
proceeding, Attorney Stanley Hack, made the following findings of 
fact based on evidence presented at a disciplinary hearing.   
 
No. 95-1584-D 
 
 
 
3 
 
In July of 1993, Attorney Sandy used cocaine with a client he 
had been appointed by the State Public Defender to represent on an 
arson charge.  Following return of the jury verdict, Attorney 
Sandy and his client went to several places to drink and later 
used cocaine.  Between the time of the verdict and the client's 
sentencing, they used cocaine together six times.  In the 
disciplinary proceeding, Attorney Sandy testified that he had a 
history of alcohol abuse and cocaine use and that he practiced law 
and made court appearances under the influence of alcohol and 
cocaine, claiming that it assisted his work.  The referee 
concluded that Attorney Sandy's use of cocaine constituted 
criminal acts reflecting adversely on his trustworthiness or 
fitness as a lawyer, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(b).
1  
 
During March and April of 1993, Attorney Sandy was appointed 
by the State Public Defender to represent a man charged with 
assaulting a minor female residing in a county group home where he 
was employed as a counselor and with providing her cocaine.  
During the last day of trial in the matter, after he had cross-
examined the minor, Attorney Sandy had a telephone conversation 
with her during which she asked about the possibility of bringing 
                     
     
1  SCR 20:8.4 provides, in pertinent part:  Misconduct   
 
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:    
 
. . . 
 
(b)  commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the 
lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other 
respects;   
 
No. 95-1584-D 
 
 
 
4 
a civil action against the group home.  When the client learned of 
that communication, he became angry and discharged Attorney Sandy. 
  
 
After being discharged, Attorney Sandy made several telephone 
calls to the minor's home attempting to ascertain whether she was 
going to pursue a civil action against the group home, which would 
have involved his former client.  Attorney Sandy met with the 
minor at her high school and they discussed a possible civil 
action, which Attorney Sandy said he would not handle but would 
refer to another attorney, for which he would receive a portion of 
the attorney fees.  No agreement was made for the referral of the 
matter to another attorney, and the matter was not pursued.  
Attorney Sandy did not have permission from his former client to 
have those contacts with the minor about a possible civil action 
against the group home.  
 
The referee concluded that Attorney Sandy's contacts with the 
minor during his client's criminal trial and thereafter in regard 
to a possible civil action that necessarily would have involved 
and been adverse to that client constituted an attempt to violate 
SCR 20:1.9(a), which prohibits a lawyer from "represent[ing] 
another person in the same or a substantially related matter in 
which that person's interests are materially adverse to the 
interests of the former client unless the former client consents 
in writing after consultation."    
 
No. 95-1584-D 
 
 
 
5 
 
While representing the client in the sexual assault case, 
Attorney Sandy learned of information potentially helpful to his 
client's defense contained in the minor's confidential children's 
court file that concerned prior false allegations the minor had 
made of having been sexually assaulted.  Although aware the file 
was confidential and could not be inspected without a court order, 
Attorney Sandy got access to and examined that file without a 
proper order by misrepresenting to the clerk of the children's 
court that he was the minor's attorney.   
 
After reviewing the confidential file, Attorney Sandy asked 
in pretrial motions for permission to introduce evidence of the 
minor's prior sexual assault allegations.  When the prosecutor 
questioned how he could have knowledge of those matters without 
first having examined the confidential court file, Attorney Sandy 
told the court he had obtained the information from various 
sources but did not disclose that he had reviewed the confidential 
file.   
 
The referee concluded that Attorney Sandy's gaining access to 
a confidential file in the children's court without an appropriate 
court order by misrepresenting that he was the minor's attorney 
constituted the making of a false statement, in violation of SCR 
20:4.1,
2 4.4
3 and 8.4(c),
4 and violated the minor's legal rights.  
                     
     
2  SCR 20:4.1 provides:  Truthfulness in statements to others 
 
In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not 
knowingly:   
 
(a)  make a false statement of a material fact or law to a 
 
No. 95-1584-D 
 
 
 
6 
The referee further concluded that his misrepresentation to the 
court regarding the source of information about the minor's prior 
sexual assault allegations violated SCR 20:3.3(a)(1)
5 as a false 
statement of fact made to a tribunal.   
 
In another matter, in July, 1993, the State Public Defender 
appointed Attorney Sandy to provide appellate representation to a 
client.  In the middle of August, 1993, Attorney Sandy wrote the 
client of his appointment and said he was awaiting transcripts and 
would meet with the client in October to discuss the case.  
Attorney Sandy's next communication to the client was by letter of 
February 19, 1994.   
(..continued) 
third person; or 
 
(b)  fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when 
disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or 
fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by 
Rule 1.6.  
     
3  SCR 20:4.4 provides:  Respect for rights of third persons 
 
In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that 
have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or 
burden a third person, or use methods of obtaining evidence that 
violate the legal rights of such a person.  
     
4  SCR 20:8.4 provides, in pertinent part:  Misconduct 
 
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:   
 
. . . 
 
(c)  engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or 
misrepresentation; 
     
5  SCR 20:3.3 provides, in pertinent part:  Candor toward the 
tribunal 
 
(a)  A lawyer shall not knowingly:   
 
(1)  make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal; 
 
No. 95-1584-D 
 
 
 
7 
 
The client sent Attorney Sandy a certified letter the post 
office attempted to deliver on three dates from mid-February to 
early March, 1994, but Attorney Sandy did not pick up that letter. 
 The client subsequently told Attorney Sandy that he had not 
received copies of material he had filed with the trial court.  
Attorney Sandy stated that he probably did not send copies of the 
material to the client "because that's time I could have used for 
a good client."  At the time, Attorney Sandy was aware the client 
was seeking another attorney to represent him and had filed a 
grievance with the Board.  After being dismissed as the client's 
attorney, Attorney Sandy asked the trial court to remove his 
pending postconviction motions from the trial court's calendar but 
did not tell the client he had done so.  The referee concluded 
that Attorney Sandy's failure to keep his client reasonably 
informed of the status of the appeal and his failure to take 
delivery of the client's certified letter violated SCR 20:1.4(a).
6 
  
 
In recommending a nine-month license suspension as discipline 
for Attorney Sandy's misconduct in these matters, the referee 
considered in mitigation that Attorney Sandy voluntarily obtained 
treatment for his substance abuse, is part of an effective 
                     
     
6  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.   
 
No. 95-1584-D 
 
 
 
8 
Alcoholics Anonymous program and "appears to be on the way to a 
recovery."  Upon reviewing the referee's findings, conclusions and 
recommendation for discipline, the court ordered the parties to 
show cause why discipline more severe than the recommended nine-
month license suspension should not be imposed.   
 
In its response, the Board continued to urge a one-year 
license suspension and the imposition of conditions directed to 
Attorney Sandy's alcohol and drug rehabilitation in addition to 
those recommended by the referee.  Specifically, the Board 
recommended that Attorney Sandy be required to continue attendance 
at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings at least three times per week 
during the period of license suspension, submit to monthly random 
drug and alcohol screenings at his own expense for a period of two 
years, and submit to the Board quarterly the results of those 
screenings and verification of his attendance at Alcoholics 
Anonymous meetings.   
 
We adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of 
law and determine that the nature and extent of Attorney Sandy's 
professional misconduct, its seriousness, and his need for 
continued rehabilitation from alcohol and substance abuse warrant 
a one-year license suspension and the imposition of the conditions 
recommended by the referee and by the Board.   
 
IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Michael B. Sandy 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of one 
year, commencing June 3, 1996.   
 
No. 95-1584-D 
 
 
 
9 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that for a period of two years, 
commencing the date of this order, Michael B. Sandy comply with 
the conditions set forth in this opinion.   
   
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this 
order Michael B. Sandy 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 Michael B. Sandy to practice law in Wisconsin shall 
remain suspended until further order of the court.   
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Michael B. Sandy 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. 95-1584-D 
 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
                                                              
 
Case No.: 
 
95-1584-D 
                                                              
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary 
 
 
 
Proceedings Against 
 
 
 
Michael B. Sandy, 
 
 
 
Attorney at Law. 
 
 
 
_______________________________ 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SANDY 
 
                                                              
 
Opinion Filed:  
April 30, 1996 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
                                                              
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
                                                              
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating: 
 
                                                              
 
ATTORNEYS: