Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Steven D. Robinson

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2008 WI 49 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2007AP67-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Steven D. Robinson, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Steven D. Robinson, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING AGAINST ROBINSON 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
May 29, 2008   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: BRADLEY, J., did not participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2008 WI 49
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2007AP67-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Steven D. Robinson, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Steven D. Robinson, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAY 29, 2008 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER 
CURIAM.   We 
review 
the 
findings 
of 
fact, 
conclusions of law and recommendations of the referee, Curry 
First, concluding that Attorney Steven D. Robinson engaged in 
unprofessional conduct in the course of his practice of law.  
Referee First recommended a public reprimand and imposition of 
the costs of this proceeding.  Neither party has appealed from 
the referee's report and recommendation.  We approve the 
No. 
2007AP67-D   
 
2 
 
findings, conclusions and recommendations as to the appropriate 
discipline for Attorney Robinson's misconduct.   
¶2 
Attorney Robinson was admitted to the practice of law 
in 1982.  In 2004 Attorney Robinson was privately reprimanded 
for failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 
representing a client, and failing to keep a client reasonably 
informed about the status of a matter and to promptly comply 
with reasonable requests for information.   
¶3 
On January 9, 2007, the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) filed a disciplinary complaint alleging two counts of 
misconduct.  Count one alleged that by failing to advance 
postconviction motions on behalf of his client, file an appeal, 
or close out the case with a no-merit report or other form of 
proper notice between March 2001, when he was initially 
appointed, and December 2005, when the State Public Defender 
(SPD) removed him from the case, Attorney Robinson failed to act 
with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a 
client, in violation of former SCR 20:1.3.1  Count two alleged 
that by failing for over one year to initially contact the 
                                                 
1 Effective July 1, 2007, substantial changes were made to 
the Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct for 
Attorneys, SCR Chapter 20.  See S. Ct. Order 04-07, 2007 WI 4, 
293 Wis. 2d xv, 726 N.W.2d Ct.R-45 (eff. July 1, 2007); and 
S. Ct. 
Order 
06-04, 
2007 
WI 
48, 
297 
Wis. 2d xv, 
730 
N.W.2d Ct.R.-29 (eff. July 1, 2007).  Because the conduct 
underlying this case arose prior to July 1, 2007, unless 
otherwise indicated, all references to the supreme court rules 
will be to those in effect prior to July 1, 2007. 
Former SCR 20:1.3 states that "[a] lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
No. 
2007AP67-D   
 
3 
 
client, failing thereafter to communicate regularly with the 
client concerning the status of his case, and failing to respond 
to requests for information, Attorney Robinson failed to keep 
the client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and 
promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, in 
violation of SCR 20:1.4(a).2 
¶4 
Following the appointment of the referee, Attorney 
Robinson and the OLR entered into a stipulation of fact.  The 
referee accepted the stipulation.  The referee found that in 
March 2001 the SPD appointed Attorney Robinson to represent 
client M.C. in postconviction proceedings.  By January 2005, 
nearly four years later, Attorney Robinson had undertaken 
minimal services on behalf of his client.  M.C. had written the 
SPD at least eight times between September of 2001 and November 
2004 requesting assistance from the SPD due to Attorney 
Robinson's lack of response.  The SPD wrote Attorney Robinson at 
least eight times seeking a response from Attorney Robinson.  
Although Attorney Robinson eventually responded to certain 
inquiries from the SPD, Attorney Robinson failed to pursue 
postconviction proceedings on his client's behalf.   
¶5 
After Attorney Robinson failed to respond to inquiries 
from the SPD in December 2004, the SPD filed a formal grievance 
against Attorney Robinson with the OLR.  In December 2005 the 
SPD informed the OLR, Attorney Robinson, and M.C. that it would 
                                                 
2 Former 20:1.4(a) states "[a] lawyer shall keep a client 
reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly 
comply with reasonable requests for information."  
No. 
2007AP67-D   
 
4 
 
appoint substitute counsel for M.C.  In January 2006 Attorney 
Robinson acknowledged to the OLR staff that he had not regularly 
communicated with M.C. regarding the status of the case and had 
not regularly responded to the SPD's inquiries regarding M.C.'s 
case.   
¶6 
Attorney Robinson did not contest the counts charged 
in the OLR's disciplinary complaint.  Upon review of the 
stipulation, the referee recommended the imposition of a public 
reprimand for the violations of SCR 20:1.3 and 20:1.4(a).  The 
referee also recommended Attorney Robinson pay the costs of the 
disciplinary proceeding.  The referee took note of the SPD's 
statement that indigent imprisoned clients, who are least able 
to obtain the respect of either society or the courts, should 
not be the recipient of such inattention by their own advocates.  
The referee concluded that the record failed to demonstrate any 
mitigating circumstances.   
¶7 
We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law and agree that a public reprimand is 
appropriate discipline for the misconduct committed by Attorney 
Robinson 
in 
this 
client 
matter. 
 
It 
is 
this 
court's 
responsibility, rather than the referee's, to determine the 
appropriate level of discipline.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Steinberg, 
2007 
WI 
113, 
¶20, 
304 
Wis. 2d 577, 
735 
N.W.2d 527. 
 
This 
court 
considers 
the 
seriousness of the misconduct, the need to protect the public, 
the courts, and the legal system from repetition of misconduct, 
the need to impress upon the attorney the seriousness of the 
No. 
2007AP67-D   
 
5 
 
misconduct, and the need to deter other attorneys from engaging 
in similar misconduct.  See id.  We are satisfied that a public 
reprimand, together with the imposition of the costs of this 
disciplinary proceeding,3 achieves lawyer discipline objectives. 
¶8 
IT IS ORDERED that Attorney Steven D. Robinson is 
publicly reprimanded for professional misconduct. 
¶9 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Attorney Steven D. Robinson pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, provided that if 
such 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 Steven D. Robinson to 
practice law in Wisconsin shall be suspended until further order 
of this court. 
¶10 ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J., did not participate. 
                                                 
3 On February 18, 2008, the OLR filed a statement seeking 
the assessment of $1,336.12 in costs.  
No. 
2007AP67-D   
 
 
 
1