Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Russell Goldstein

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2004 WI 87 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
03-0523-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Russell Goldstein, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Russell Goldstein,  
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GOLDSTEIN 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 30, 2004   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
April 29, 2004   
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the respondent-appellant there was a brief by Harvey 
Jay Goldstein and Harvey Jay Goldstein, S.C., Milwaukee. 
 
For the complainant-respondent there was a brief by Robert 
G. Krohn and Roethe, Krohn, Pope, McCarthy, Haas & Robinson, 
LLP, Edgerton. 
 
 
2004 WI 87 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  03-0523-D  
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Russell Goldstein, Attorney at  
Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Russell Goldstein,  
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 30, 2004 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Attorney Russell Goldstein appeals from 
a referee's report recommending that his license to practice law 
in Wisconsin be suspended for a period of four months, for 
violations of supreme court rules governing diligence, lawyer-
client communications, and fee arrangements in six separate 
client matters.  We adopt the referee's findings and conclusions 
and agree that a four-month suspension is appropriate discipline 
given the facts of this case. 
No. 
03-0523-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
Attorney 
Goldstein 
was 
admitted 
to 
practice 
in 
Wisconsin in 1951.  He is primarily a solo practitioner in the 
Milwaukee area.  In 2000 he received a private reprimand for 
violating SCR 20:1.3 (diligence) and SCR 20:1.4(a) (failure to 
promptly respond to a client).  He has no other disciplinary 
history. 
¶3 
On February 26, 2003, the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) filed a complaint against Attorney Goldstein, alleging 
some 
twelve 
counts 
of 
attorney 
misconduct 
committed 
in 
connection with six client matters.  Attorney Goldstein was 
charged with violating SCR 20:1.31 (diligence) (three charges), 
SCR 20:1.4(a)2 and (b)3 (communication) (seven charges), and SCR 
20:1.54 (fees) (two charges).  A one-day hearing was conducted on 
August 12, 2003.  Referee James J. Winiarski filed the report 
and recommendation on December 22, 2003, and this appeal 
followed. 
¶4 
On appeal, Attorney Goldstein does not challenge the 
referee's factual findings, per se.  Rather, he challenges the 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.3 (Diligence) provides: "A lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
 
2 SCR 20:1.4(a) provides: "A lawyer shall keep a client 
reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly 
comply with reasonable requests for information." 
 
3 SCR 20:1.4(b) provides: "A lawyer shall explain a matter 
to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make 
informed decisions regarding the representation." 
 
4 SCR 20:1.5(b) provides: "When the lawyer has not regularly 
represented the client, the basis or rate of the fee shall be 
communicated to the client, preferably in writing, before or 
within a reasonable time after commencing the representation." 
No. 
03-0523-D   
 
3 
 
referee's conclusion that the facts found rise to the level of 
violations 
of 
the 
respective 
supreme 
court 
rules. 
 
For 
simplicity, each client matter will be discussed seriatim. 
MATTER OF J.V. 
¶5 
The complaint alleged and the referee found that J.V. 
retained Attorney Goldstein in 1995 to represent him in a 
divorce proceeding.  The case proceeded to trial in the 
Milwaukee County Circuit Court, and the trial court denied any 
maintenance to J.V.'s former spouse and also provided that her 
pension was to be shared with J.V.  She appealed. 
¶6 
Attorney Goldstein did not advise J.V. of the appeal 
for some three months.  Attorney Goldstein eventually sent a 
letter to J.V. advising him of the appeal, and indicating that 
J.V. still owed him a substantial amount of money for legal fees 
incurred in the underlying proceeding.  He asked J.V. to 
immediately pay him $500. 
¶7 
Attorney 
Goldstein 
later 
sent 
some 
additional 
correspondence to J.V., indicating he had received an appellate 
brief from opposing counsel and that it was necessary to file a 
responsive brief.  This letter asked for legal fees in the 
amount of $1500 to file a responsive brief, and indicated that 
Attorney Goldstein would do nothing until arrangements were made 
for payment of old fees, plus new fees necessary to cover the 
cost of an appeal. 
¶8 
On March 14, 2000, the court of appeals issued an 
order directing J.V. to file his appellate brief within five 
days.  On or about March 16, 2000, Attorney Goldstein sent 
No. 
03-0523-D   
 
4 
 
another letter to J.V., again advising J.V. that unless 
arrangements were made with respect to past-due and prospective 
fees, Attorney Goldstein would do nothing further for J.V.  On 
April 4, 2000, the court of appeals issued an order providing 
that, unless a brief was filed within ten days, the trial court 
judgment would be summarily reversed. 
¶9 
Attorney Goldstein did not file a brief on behalf of 
J.V. in the court of appeals.  On December 5, 2000, the court of 
appeals summarily reversed the original divorce judgment.5 
¶10 The referee found that Attorney Goldstein's only 
communications with J.V. during the course of the appeal were 
the three letters mentioned above.  He found further that 
Attorney Goldstein never provided J.V. with copies of any of the 
notices or orders received from the court of appeals.  The 
referee also found that Attorney Goldstein did not move to 
withdraw from the circuit court case, and did not advise the 
court of appeals that he was not representing J.V. on appeal.  
The referee found further that Attorney Goldstein did not 
clearly explain to J.V. the consequences of failing to timely 
file a responsive brief in the court of appeals. 
¶11 The referee thus concluded that Attorney Goldstein 
failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 
representing a client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3.  In addition, 
by failing to advise his client of the orders issued by the 
court of appeals, and by failing to advise him of the 
                                                 
5 After 
the 
divorce 
judgment 
was 
summarily 
reversed, 
Goldstein represented J.V. in the trial court. 
No. 
03-0523-D   
 
5 
 
consequences of not filing a brief in the court of appeals, the 
referee concluded that Attorney Goldstein failed to keep his 
client reasonably informed of the status of the matter, in 
violation of SCR 20:1.4(a).  Finally, the referee concluded that 
by failing to notify and advise the client of the specifics of 
the appeal, Attorney Goldstein failed to explain a matter to the 
extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make an 
informed decision regarding his representation, in violation of 
SCR 20:1.4(b). 
¶12 Attorney Goldstein challenges these conclusions on 
appeal.  He argues that even after receiving notice of the 
appeal, J.V. opted to do nothing, such that he suffered no real 
prejudice.  In addition, Attorney Goldstein contends that an 
appeal in a family law matter is effectively a separate action 
from the trial court proceeding, so that he did not consider 
himself to be representing J.V. on appeal, because J.V. did not 
separately retain him for that purpose.  As such, he suggests he 
could not have violated a duty to communicate with J.V. 
¶13 The 
referee 
considered 
these 
defenses 
in 
the 
evidentiary hearing, but was not persuaded.  The referee 
explained: 
 . . . there are a number of actions that Goldstein 
should reasonably have taken after the appeal was 
filed.  First, he should have advised [J.V.] of the 
appeal in a more timely manner.  Having learned of the 
appeal in August of 1999, Goldstein had an obligation 
to advise [J.V.] of the appeal prior to Goldstein's 
initial correspondence in relation to the appeal which 
was sent to [J.V.] on November 4, 1999. 
No. 
03-0523-D   
 
6 
 
Goldstein should have provided [J.V.] with copies 
of the notice of appeal and the orders issued by the 
court of appeals in relation to briefing.  Goldstein 
should have advised [J.V.] of the consequences of 
failing to file a responsive brief in the appeal.  
Further, Goldstein should have advised the court of 
appeals that he was not representing [J.V.] in the 
appeal.  A copy of such notice should have been 
provided to [J.V.]   
Report and Recommendation at 14. 
¶14 The referee specifically discussed the testimony of 
Goldstein's expert witness, Attorney Greg Herman, regarding 
Attorney Goldstein's contention that he had no legal duty to 
J.V. because he did not really represent him on appeal.  The 
referee noted that Attorney Herman testified that an attorney 
who represents a client in a family matter at the trial court 
level does not automatically become responsible for any appeal 
in the case.  However, Attorney Herman testified that the more 
appropriate procedure would have been to advise the client of a 
deadline by which an agreement regarding legal fees and 
representation would need to be in place.  If no such agreement 
were reached, then Attorney Goldstein would have had no 
responsibility 
for 
the 
appeal. 
 
Attorney 
Herman 
also 
acknowledged that it would have been appropriate for Attorney 
Goldstein to advise the court of appeals that he was not 
involved in the appeal.   
¶15 The 
referee 
ultimately 
decided 
that 
it 
was 
"unnecessary to determine whether or not Goldstein represented 
[the client] in the appeal."  He explained: 
I am more concerned with the fact that Goldstein did 
not advise [J.V.] of the appeal for a period of 
No. 
03-0523-D   
 
7 
 
approximately three months.  Goldstein did not advise 
[J.V.] of the consequences of failing to reply to the 
appeal.  Goldstein did not provide [J.V.] with copies 
of the Notice of Appeal and the orders issued by the 
Court of Appeals.  Regardless of whether [J.V.] paid 
appellate 
legal 
fees 
or 
failed 
to 
respond 
to 
correspondence 
from 
Goldstein, 
Goldstein 
had 
the 
obligation to provide timely notice to [J.V.] of the 
appeal and the consequences of failing to reply to the 
appeal.  He did not do so. 
Report and Recommendation at 15.  The referee did consider the 
fact that "Goldstein did advise [the client], in three separate 
letters, of the appeal" and that "[the client] had not paid 
requested fees in relation to the trial court matter."  However, 
the referee was of the opinion that the admitted allegations of 
the complaint, together with Goldstein's testimony, constituted 
clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence that Goldstein 
violated SCR 20:1.1(a) and 20:1.4(b).  We agree that Attorney 
Goldstein's actions in this regard failed to meet the standards 
required by these supreme court rules. 
MATTER OF G.S. 
¶16 The complaint alleged and the referee found that G.S. 
retained Goldstein to represent her in two separate personal 
injury claims relating to two accidents that allegedly occurred 
on February 22, 1990, and August 30, 1992, respectively.   
¶17 With respect to the February 1990 claim, Attorney 
Goldstein did not file a lawsuit within the applicable statute 
of limitations, and he failed to inform G.S. of this fact.  
Attorney Goldstein did file a lawsuit regarding the August 1992 
accident.  However, he then failed to respond to interrogatories 
served upon him, or otherwise prosecute the case, despite an 
No. 
03-0523-D   
 
8 
 
order from the court directing him to do so.  Eventually, the 
defendants moved to dismiss the action with prejudice, and 
sought costs and attorney fees.  Attorney Goldstein did not 
object and the lawsuit was dismissed, with prejudice.  The court 
awarded costs and attorney fees to the defendant, but Attorney 
Goldstein did not advise G.S. of the motion to dismiss, or of 
the ensuing judgment for costs and attorney fees. 
¶18 We recognize, as did the referee, that some mitigating 
circumstances existed here.  Attorney Goldstein admits that he 
failed to file the 1990 personal injury claim and admits further 
that he does not recall the specific reasons for that omission.  
However, he defends his subsequent failure to communicate with 
his client, explaining that he made several attempts to reach 
her, without success.  Moreover, it appears that the client did 
not try to contact him either, for a period of more than a year.  
Attorney Goldstein maintains that under those circumstances, it 
was reasonable for him to assume the client did not wish to 
proceed with her case.  In addition, the record reflects that 
Attorney Goldstein had concerns about the merits of both cases, 
which presumably influenced his decision not to file the first 
lawsuit and his willingness to accede to the dismissal of the 
second lawsuit.   
¶19 Nonetheless, 
the 
referee 
expressed 
concern 
that 
Attorney Goldstein could offer "no written evidence of any 
attempts to communicate with [G.S.] in relation to either of the 
actions."  Id. at 16.  The referee explained:  "There is no 
written evidence of any attempts to reach [G.S.], explain the 
No. 
03-0523-D   
 
9 
 
status of either case to her, explain the applicable statute of 
limitations to her, or to communicate the motion for dismissal 
of the 1992 action to her."  Id.  The referee was also concerned 
that Attorney Goldstein made no effort to avoid the dismissal 
with prejudice, or to avoid the imposition of costs and 
sanctions on his client.  Id. at 16. 
¶20 On balance, the referee concluded that by failing to 
respond 
to 
interrogatories 
submitted 
concerning 
the 
1992 
accident claim, by failing to otherwise prosecute this claim, 
and by failing to attempt to resolve the litigation without 
prejudice, or the imposition of costs or attorney fees, Attorney 
Goldstein failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in representing a client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3.   
¶21 In addition, by failing to inform G.S. that he would 
not file a lawsuit in connection with her 1990 claim, and by 
failing to inform G.S. that a motion to dismiss her 1992 claim 
had been filed, and that the court subsequently dismissed the 
claim with prejudice and awarded costs and attorney fees, 
Attorney Goldstein failed to keep a client reasonably informed 
of the status of a matter, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a). 
¶22 Finally, the referee concluded that by failing to 
inform his client that he did not believe either of her cases 
had merit and by failing to explain her options with regard to 
the motion to dismiss, Attorney Goldstein failed to explain 
matters to the extent reasonably necessary to permit a client to 
make 
informed 
decisions 
regarding 
the 
representation, 
in 
violation of SCR 20:1.4(b). 
No. 
03-0523-D   
 
10 
 
¶23 We agree that the referee's findings of fact with 
respect to this matter constitute sufficient factual findings to 
support the conclusion that Attorney Goldstein violated SCR 
20:1.3, 20:1.4(a), and 20:1.4(b). 
MATTER OF J.W. 
¶24 In early 2001 J.W. retained Attorney Goldstein to 
represent him in a criminal matter.  The matter ultimately went 
to trial in Milwaukee County Circuit Court, and in May 2001 J.W. 
was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to 14 years in 
prison.  At the sentencing hearing Attorney Goldstein asked J.W. 
if he wanted to pursue postconviction relief and J.W. responded 
"yes."  J.W. and Attorney Goldstein signed the requisite form 
notifying the court of J.W.'s notice of intent to pursue 
postconviction relief. However, Attorney Goldstein then failed 
to file the form. 
¶25 The referee concluded that by failing to file the 
"Notice of Intent" form, Attorney Goldstein failed to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in 
violation of SCR 20:1.3.  In so holding, the referee noted that 
such failure was a minimal violation of SCR 20:1.3, stating: "I 
see Goldstein's actions in failing to file the Notice as simple 
forgetfulness.  Goldstein is not the first attorney to forget to 
file such Notice.  His actions caused no harm to the defendant.  
This was a very minimal violation of SCR 20:1.3."  Id. at 17 
(emphasis added). 
¶26 On appeal, Attorney Goldstein acknowledges that he may 
have forgotten to file the form, but suggests that it is also 
No. 
03-0523-D   
 
11 
 
possible the error is attributable to the clerk's office.  He 
notes further that J.W. was permitted to proceed with his 
appeal, such that there was no real prejudice to the client as a 
result of his oversight.  We agree with the referee's conclusion 
that this was a minimal violation of SCR 20:1.3, but it was a 
violation nonetheless. 
MATTER OF M.H. 
¶27 The complaint alleged and the referee found that on or 
about February 2, 2001, Attorney Goldstein was retained to 
represent M.H. in a pending parole revocation hearing.  Attorney 
Goldstein agreed to handle the revocation hearing for what M.H.  
thought would be a "flat fee" of $750.  This fee was paid to 
Attorney Goldstein in installments in February, March, and April 
2001.  There was no written fee agreement. 
¶28 The parties vigorously disputed how the attorney-
client relationship proceeded.  M.H. asserted that he made 
repeated attempts to arrange meetings with Attorney Goldstein to 
discuss the pending revocation proceedings.  He testified that 
he was concerned because he had only spoken with Attorney 
Goldstein briefly by telephone, and they had not discussed 
specifics of the upcoming revocation proceeding.  M.H. asserted 
that he made arrangements to meet Attorney Goldstein one hour 
before the scheduled revocation hearing, but Goldstein failed to 
appear for the pre-hearing meeting.  It is undisputed that 
Attorney Goldstein did appear for the hearing, but M.H. believed 
Goldstein was not adequately prepared.  Accordingly, M.H. 
No. 
03-0523-D   
 
12 
 
discharged Attorney Goldstein and requested a refund of all 
legal fees paid.   
¶29 Attorney Goldstein maintains that he was prepared for 
the revocation hearing.  He produced evidence indicating that he 
did meet with M.H. on a date prior to the revocation hearing.  
However, he admitted that he had no recollection of the details 
of the meeting and was unable to produce notes, time records, or 
other file materials to demonstrate that he discussed the matter 
with his client.  
¶30 In 
any 
event, 
following 
termination 
of 
the 
representation, Attorney Goldstein sent M.H. an itemized billing 
dated June 27, 2001, indicating that an additional $430 was due 
in fees relating to the revocation matter.  Attorney Goldstein 
admitted he never informed M.H. of his legal billing rate. 
¶31 Ultimately, after considering the conflicting evidence 
presented at the hearing, the referee concluded that Attorney 
Goldstein had failed to keep his client reasonably informed of 
the status of the matter, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a).   
¶32 The referee was clearly more concerned about the lack 
of a written fee agreement in this matter.  Attorney Goldstein 
testified that his general practice was to quote "flat fees" 
when retained in such matters.  He testified that he believed in 
flat fee arrangements and that he would generally absorb any 
additional charges that exceeded the flat fee he quoted his 
clients.  In this matter, however, Attorney Goldstein charged 
and received a flat fee of $750 to represent M.H., but after 
being fired by M.H.  he proceeded to submit an additional bill 
No. 
03-0523-D   
 
13 
 
for $430.  Moreover, Attorney Goldstein acknowledged that he did 
not discuss the prospect of fees beyond the $750 with his client 
or with the individuals who initially hired him on the client's 
behalf.  Accordingly, the referee found that: 
There was no way [the client], or the persons who 
hired Goldstein on behalf of [the client], would know 
if additional legal fees would be incurred, and if so, 
how 
those 
fees 
would 
be 
computed. 
 
Goldstein 
acknowledges that the fee arrangement was not reduced 
to writing.  Goldstein produced no documentation in 
support 
of 
his 
alleged 
fee 
position 
in 
this 
matter. . . .   
Moreover, Goldstein did not produce the file for this matter or 
otherwise document the fees he charged for his work in this 
matter. Report and Recommendation at 18. 
¶33 Thus, the referee concluded that by failing to clearly 
articulate or reduce to writing his fee agreement with his 
client, Goldstein failed to communicate the basis or rate to the 
client within a reasonable time after the commencement of his 
representation, in violation of SCR 20:1.5(b). 
¶34 On appeal, Attorney Goldstein admits there was no 
written billing agreement but maintains he was adequately 
prepared to represent M.H., thus challenging the referee's 
conclusion that he violated SCR 20:1.4.  While the court is 
mindful 
that 
representing 
criminal 
defendants 
may 
be 
a 
challenging practice, Attorney Goldstein does not detail or 
provide documentary evidence to support his claim that he 
adequately communicated with this client and we conclude that 
No. 
03-0523-D   
 
14 
 
the record supports the referee's conclusions of law with 
respect to this matter. 
MATTER OF J.S. and G.M.  
¶35 The complaint alleged and the referee found that J.S. 
retained Attorney Goldstein in October 2001 to represent her 
son, G.M., who had been charged in Outagamie county with 
recklessly endangering the safety of a minor by using a 
dangerous weapon.   
¶36 When 
Attorney 
Goldstein 
was 
retained, 
G.M. 
was 
represented by a public defender.  However, his mother wanted 
G.M. to have private counsel.  Indeed, the referee found that 
J.S. specifically told Attorney Goldstein that she did not want 
her son to be represented by a public defender in any upcoming 
court appearances.  Attorney Goldstein requested a $1500 
retainer to undertake this representation. 
¶37 A preliminary hearing was scheduled for October 9, 
2001.  A few days prior to the scheduled hearing J.S. paid 
Attorney Goldstein $800 of the requested $1500 retainer, which 
Goldstein accepted.  Goldstein advised J.S. that, due to a 
conflict, he would not be available for the October 9, 2001, 
hearing, but he assured J.S. that he would arrange for another 
private attorney to represent her son at the hearing.  
¶38 The 
day 
before 
the 
scheduled 
hearing 
Attorney 
Goldstein sent a letter to G.M.'s public defender, John 
Zadrazel, requesting that Attorney Zadrazel represent G.M. at 
the October 9, 2001, hearing.  The letter stated that Attorney 
Goldstein had not been paid a retainer fee, and stated he might 
No. 
03-0523-D   
 
15 
 
be retained in the future.  The letter requested that Attorney 
Zadrazel continue to represent G.M. until Attorney Goldstein 
received payment. 
¶39 Attorney Zadrazel appeared on G.M.'s behalf at the 
preliminary hearing.   When J.S. learned of this she fired 
Attorney Goldstein and requested the return of her deposit.  
Goldstein returned $600 of the $800 he had received. 
¶40 The referee observed: 
Goldstein knew [G.M. and J.S.] hired him because 
they wanted [G.M.] represented by a private attorney.  
While Goldstein copied his letter of October 8, 2001, 
to [G.M.], such action was insufficient given the 
hearing was on October 9, 2001.  I am also satisfied 
that [J.S.] was led to believe that Goldstein did 
represent [G.M.] after she paid the $800.00. 
Report and Recommendation at 19. 
¶41 Thus, the referee found that by failing to inform G.M. 
or J.S. that he had arranged for a public defender to appear on 
behalf of G.M., Attorney Goldstein failed to explain a matter to 
the extent reasonably necessary to permit a client to make an 
informed decision regarding representation, in violation of SCR 
20:1.4(b). 
¶42 On 
appeal 
Attorney 
Goldstein 
challenges 
this 
conclusion.  From his perspective, he had not been fully 
retained because he had received only a portion of the requested 
retainer.   
¶43 As the referee observed, this incident exemplifies the 
problems that may develop when lawyers fail to put fee 
No. 
03-0523-D   
 
16 
 
arrangements 
in 
writing, 
or 
to 
adequately 
explain 
such 
arrangements to their clients.   
¶44 Attorney Goldstein accepted a partial payment for a 
requested retainer.  In the absence of a written agreement 
specifying the effect of this action, the client and his family 
were placed in a difficult predicament.  The client and his 
family believed they had hired an attorney and were not clearly 
told otherwise.  However, when the retainer was not paid in 
full, Attorney Goldstein then took the position that he was not 
representing G.M.  Indeed, the referee used Attorney Goldstein's 
letter to the state public defender in the G.M. matter as an 
example 
of 
the 
"confusion 
that 
results 
from 
Goldstein's 
policies."   
¶45 In the letter, Attorney Goldstein indicates that he 
will "eventually" represent G.M., but he then proceeds to 
request information about the case.  Also, after J.S. fired 
Goldstein he wrote a letter to the state public defender 
indicating he was "no longer representing [G.M.]."  The record 
supports the referee's conclusion that by failing to explain the 
consequences of a partial payment of a retainer to his clients, 
Attorney Goldstein violated SCR 20:1.4(b). 
MATTER OF C.K. 
¶46 On or about September 24, 1999, C.K.'s father, 
retained 
Attorney 
Goldstein 
to 
represent 
C.K., 
who 
was 
incarcerated at the Waupun Correctional Institution following 
parole revocation.  C.K.'s father paid Attorney Goldstein a 
$1000 retainer.  There was no written fee agreement.   
No. 
03-0523-D   
 
17 
 
¶47 C.K.'s father testified that he believed the retainer 
would 
cover 
research, 
investigation, 
and 
the 
pursuit 
of 
available remedies on behalf of his son.  Attorney Goldstein 
testified that he believed the $1000 retainer was only for 
purposes of reviewing the matter and researching possible 
remedies for the client. 
¶48 It is undisputed that Attorney Goldstein did research 
the background and history of the case, and communicated with 
the client's probation officer.  He also wrote to the client 
several times, asking C.K. to telephone him as soon as possible. 
¶49 When he received no response to these communications, 
Attorney Goldstein wrote to the client's father, asking him to 
contact Attorney Goldstein to arrange a meeting to discuss the 
results of his preliminary research.  Neither C.K. nor his 
father ever replied to Attorney Goldstein's letters.   
¶50 Nonetheless, on or about December 4, 2000, the client 
filed a grievance with the OLR, complaining that he had not 
heard from his attorney for over a year.  He also asserted that 
the retainer funds of $1000 paid to Goldstein were to cover not 
only research and investigation, but also the pursuit of 
available remedies on his behalf. 
¶51 The complaint filed in this matter charged that 
Attorney Goldstein violated his duty of communication by his 
handling of this matter.  However, the referee disagreed, 
concluding that the OLR had not succeeded in showing that 
Attorney Goldstein had failed to explain the status of the 
matter to his client to the extent reasonably necessary to 
No. 
03-0523-D   
 
18 
 
permit his client to make informed decisions regarding the 
representation. 
¶52 With respect to the fee arrangement, however, the 
referee stated: "Goldstein should have adequately discussed his 
fees with the [clients] or placed his fee agreement with the 
[clients] in writing to avoid any misunderstandings."  The 
referee agreed with Attorney Goldstein's assertion that it was 
unreasonable for the clients to expect a $1000 retainer in a 
serious felony case to cover not only investigation and review 
by a lawyer, but also additional legal proceedings and pursuit 
of additional remedies.  However, the referee did conclude that 
by failing to clearly articulate or reduce to writing what 
services 
his 
fee 
covered, 
Attorney 
Goldstein 
failed 
to 
communicate the basis or rate to the client within a reasonable 
time after the commencement of the representation, in violation 
of SCR 20:1.5(b). 
¶53 On appeal, Goldstein admits that there was no written 
fee 
agreement, 
but 
renews 
his 
contention 
that 
it 
was 
unreasonable for the clients to think $1000 would cover 
additional legal proceedings.  He reminds the court that the 
clients never responded to his communications.   
¶54 As 
noted, 
Attorney 
Goldstein 
prevailed 
on 
the 
allegation that he failed to explain the status of the matter to 
these 
clients. 
 
This 
conclusion 
reflects 
the 
referee's 
recognition of the fact that the clients neither contacted 
Attorney 
Goldstein 
nor 
responded 
to 
his 
communications.  
However, the record supports the referee's conclusions with 
No. 
03-0523-D   
 
19 
 
respect to the violation of SCR 20:1.5(b).  While the clients' 
expectations with respect to what their retainer would cover 
were unreasonable, it was incumbent upon the lawyer to clarify 
these expectations. 
¶55 We turn to the question of the appropriate discipline 
for Attorney Goldstein's misconduct.  The OLR contends that 
Attorney Goldstein's license should be suspended for a period of 
six months, and has cited a number of cases to support that 
position.  Attorney Goldstein contends that a public reprimand 
or, at most, a two-month suspension, is warranted here.  After 
careful analysis and thorough discussion Referee Winiarski 
recommended this court suspend Attorney Goldstein's license to 
practice law in Wisconsin for a period of four months, and 
recommended further that Attorney Goldstein pay the costs of 
this proceeding. 
¶56 Attorney Goldstein has been in practice since 1951.  
His reputation is clearly that of an "experienced, prepared and 
trustworthy attorney."  The court is also mindful that Attorney 
Goldstein has recently had some serious medical issues to 
contend with.  The referee emphasized that there was no malice 
involved in the incidents, and acknowledged the challenges 
inherent 
in 
representing 
criminal 
defendants. 
 
He 
also 
concluded, and we agree, that some of the infractions described 
herein were fairly minor.  
¶57 However, he noted further, and again we agree, that 
the J.V. matter is quite serious.  In addition, we are mindful 
that the complaint filed against Attorney Goldstein implicated 
No. 
03-0523-D   
 
20 
 
some six separate client matters, thus evidencing "disturbing 
patterns" followed by Goldstein in the handling of cases.  
¶58 We 
commend 
Referee 
Winiarski 
for 
his 
careful 
consideration of the evidence and mitigating circumstances 
presented in this matter, and for his thorough and well-prepared 
report and recommendation.  We agree that the referee's findings 
evidence a pattern of misconduct with respect to failure to 
establish adequate fee arrangements and, to a lesser extent, 
with respect to the failure to complete cases or communicate 
adequately with clients.  We adopt the referee's findings and 
conclusions in this matter, and we accept the referee's 
recommendation 
that 
a 
four-month 
suspension 
of 
Attorney 
Goldstein's license to practice law is appropriate discipline 
under the circumstances of this case.  We agree that Attorney 
Goldstein 
should be required to 
pay 
the 
costs of 
this 
disciplinary proceeding. 
¶59 Upon the foregoing reasons, 
¶60 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Russell 
Goldstein to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period 
of four months, and until reinstated by this court, effective 
August 4, 2004.  
¶61 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Russell Goldstein 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended. 
¶62 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Attorney Russell Goldstein shall pay to the Office 
No. 
03-0523-D   
 
21 
 
of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding in the amount 
of $11,551.29.  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 Attorney 
Russell Goldstein to practice law in Wisconsin shall be 
suspended until further order of the court. 
 
No. 
03-0523-D   
 
 
 
1