Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Susan M. Cotten

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2002 WI 112 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
02-0496-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Susan M. Cotten, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
Complainant, 
 
v. 
Susan M. Cotten,  
 
Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST COTTEN 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
September 11, 2002   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: ABRAHAMSON, C.J., did not participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2002 WI 112 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  02-0496-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Susan M. Cotten, Attorney at  
Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Susan M. Cotten,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
SEP 11, 2002 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the referee's recommendation 
that Attorney Susan M. Cotten's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin be suspended for one year for professional misconduct.  
That misconduct consists of failing to employ the requisite 
legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably 
necessary for the representation of a client; failing to act 
with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a 
client; failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the 
No. 
02-0496-D   
 
2 
 
status of a matter; engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; failing to withdraw from 
representation of a client if the lawyer's physical or mental 
condition materially impairs the lawyer's ability to represent 
the client; and failing to cooperate with the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation's (OLR) grievance investigators.  The referee also 
recommended that Attorney Cotten be required to pay restitution 
to the client and that she pay the costs of the proceeding.   
¶2 
We determine that the seriousness of Attorney Cotten's 
professional misconduct warrants a suspension of her license to 
practice law for one year.   
¶3 
Attorney Cotten was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1995 and practiced in Madison.  On June 5, 2000, 
her license to practice law in Wisconsin was suspended for 
noncompliance 
with 
Continuing 
Legal 
Education 
(CLE) 
requirements.  On April 4, 2001, this court suspended her 
license for six months, effective May 8, 2001, as discipline for 
professional misconduct consisting of failing to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; 
failing to keep a client reasonably informed of the status of a 
matter, and failing to promptly comply with reasonable requests 
for information; failing to take steps to the extent reasonably 
practicable to protect the interests of a client; engaging in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit, 
or 
misrepresentation; 
and 
failing 
to 
cooperate 
with 
the 
investigation 
into 
her 
misconduct. 
 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Cotten, 2001 WI 29, 242 Wis. 2d 117, 624 
No. 
02-0496-D   
 
3 
 
N.W.2d 360.  On May 21, 2001, this court suspended Attorney 
Cotten's license after she failed to respond to an order to show 
cause relating to her willful failure to cooperate with the 
investigation of a grievance.  She has not sought reinstatement 
from any of those suspensions. 
¶4 
The complaint filed by OLR alleged misconduct with 
respect two former clients.  The first client hired Attorney 
Cotten in 1998 to file and prosecute a legal malpractice action 
against Attorney J.O.  The client had hired Attorney J.O. in 
June 1989 to represent her in connection with a claim that she 
had filed with the State of Wisconsin in 1988, relating to her 
prior employment with the state.  In October 1991 Attorney J.O. 
notified the state that he was withdrawing the client's 
complaint and that he would instead be filing an action in state 
or federal court.  No lawsuit was ever filed.  In February 1993 
Attorney J.O. wrote to the client that he had decided it was not 
in her best interest to prosecute the case.  The client was 
subsequently informed by another attorney that the statute of 
limitations on her claim had expired prior to February 1993.  
¶5 
On October 2, 1998, Attorney Cotten filed a lawsuit 
against Attorney J.O. on the client's behalf in Dane County 
Circuit Court.  Attorney Cotten actively prosecuted the lawsuit 
from October 1998 through the summer of 1999.   Beginning in 
August of 1999 Attorney Cotten essentially stopped working on 
the case.  She failed to respond to discovery requests sent by 
Attorney J.O.'s counsel and failed to attend several motion 
hearings regarding discovery brought by Attorney J.O.'s attorney 
No. 
02-0496-D   
 
4 
 
between September and December 1999.  During this time Attorney 
Cotten assured the client that the case was moving along 
smoothly and that the discovery requests were irrelevant and 
responses were not required. 
¶6 
During a hearing on November 30, 1999, Attorney Cotten 
informed the court that she was battling clinical depression and 
that she had been unable to function during the end of September 
and all of October 1999, including not being able to answer 
phone calls, open mail, or attend any court appearances.  The 
court allowed her an opportunity to provide medical evidence 
that would justify her conduct, and the case was adjourned to 
December 21, 1999.   
¶7 
Attorney Cotten failed to submit any medical evidence 
or to appear at the December 21, 1999, hearing.  The court 
granted Attorney J.O.'s dismissal motion based on Attorney 
Cotten's failure to appear and the lack of response to discovery 
requests.  The court stated it found Attorney Cotten's delays to 
be "egregious," in spite of her purported medical difficulties. 
¶8 
Attorney Cotten moved to reopen the case, saying she 
had missed the December 21, 1999, hearing due to car trouble.  
She also submitted a letter from her physician.  During a 
hearing on January 10, 2000, Attorney Cotten admitted to the 
court that she had not informed the client that her case had 
been dismissed in December 1999.  She also told the court that 
when she took the case she believed her depression was under 
control with medication and therapy.  She said she subsequently 
underwent another depression in the fall of 1999 in which she 
No. 
02-0496-D   
 
5 
 
became even more depressed.  She said she and her physician were 
going to experiment with medications and that she was going to 
focus on finishing up her pending cases and not accept new ones.  
¶9 
During another hearing on January 20, 2000, with the 
client present, the circuit court vacated the dismissal order 
and awarded actual costs against the client.  The court also 
instructed the client to find replacement counsel within 30 days 
of the hearing.  The client did retain successor counsel but, 
according to the circuit court, the successor attorney also 
failed to effectively represent the client.   
¶10 Attorney Cotten and the client's successor counsel 
both appeared at a hearing on April 6, 2000.  Attorney Cotten 
brought with her several boxes of documents that she had been 
ordered to produce months earlier.  Attorney J.O.'s counsel 
renewed his motion to dismiss the case for failure to respond to 
previous discovery requests, and the court granted the motion 
with prejudice.  During the hearing Attorney J.O.'s counsel 
asserted that the answers to interrogatories prepared by 
Attorney Cotten were so incomplete that it represented a failure 
to prosecute the case.  
¶11 The circuit court commented that Attorney Cotten's 
answers to the interrogatories were so unresponsive that they 
were "astonishing."  The court concluded Attorney Cotten lacked 
experience and knowledge and understanding of the duty of 
plaintiff's counsel to respond to interrogatories.  The court 
further concluded that Attorney Cotten's inability to prepare 
the answers to interrogatories went beyond mental illness and 
No. 
02-0496-D   
 
6 
 
evinced a lack of understanding on her part as to what counsel 
is supposed to do when answers to interrogatories are overdue.  
The court stated that Attorney Cotten had provided ineffective 
assistance of counsel.   
¶12 In granting Attorney J.O.'s motion to dismiss the 
circuit court recognized that Attorney Cotten was suffering from 
a mental illness that impacted her ability to represent her 
client.  At the same time the court strongly chastised both 
Attorney Cotten and successor counsel for their egregious 
failure to respond to the written interrogatories or timely 
produce requested documents, for ineffective assistance of 
counsel throughout the proceedings, for failure to prosecute the 
case, and for failure to understand court orders.  The court 
assessed costs against the client and entered a judgment against 
her.  The costs were subsequently waived by Attorney J.O. 
¶13 In May and June 2000 the client sent letters to 
Attorney Cotten attempting to arrange to retrieve her file, 
which included several audiotapes.  Attorney Cotten delivered 
documents to the client on May 16, 2000, but did not return the 
tapes.  The client made numerous calls to Attorney Cotten from 
July through December 2000 attempting to get the tapes.   
¶14 In October of 2000 the client filed a grievance 
against Attorney Cotten.  On December 14, 2000, an OLR staff 
investigator sent a copy of the grievance by first-class mail to 
Attorney Cotten at the address where she had maintained a law 
office in her home prior to the June 2000 CLE suspension.  The 
letter informed Attorney Cotten that she was required to provide 
No. 
02-0496-D   
 
7 
 
a written response on or before January 8, 2001, and informed 
her of her duty to cooperate with OLR's investigation.  No 
response was received. 
¶15 On January 10, 2001, the OLR investigator sent a 
follow-up letter to Attorney Cotten by certified mail, reminding 
her of her duty to cooperate and the possible consequences of 
not cooperating.  The letter was returned to OLR's office marked 
"unclaimed-return to sender."  On February 19, 2001, Attorney 
Cotten's husband was personally served at their residence with a 
letter to Attorney Cotten from OLR dated February 15, 2001, and 
with copies of the grievance and the letters that OLR had 
previously sent her.  Attorney Cotten telephoned the staff 
investigator to request a meeting involving Attorney Cotten, her 
therapist and OLR staff.  After discussing the request with an 
OLR supervisor the staff investigator left a message in Attorney 
Cotten's voicemail informing her of OLR's opinion that a face-
to-face meeting might not be the best way to further the 
investigation and asking her to call to discuss the matter 
further.  Attorney Cotten failed to reply.  
¶16 On March 7, 2001, OLR staff sent a letter to Attorney 
Cotten by certified and first-class mail describing OLR's 
previous correspondence and telephone conversations, stating 
that the letter constituted OLR's final request that she provide 
a written response to the grievance, and asking her to respond 
within seven days.  Attorney Cotten failed to respond in any way 
to the letter.  The letter that was sent by certified mail was 
No. 
02-0496-D   
 
8 
 
returned to OLR marked "unclaimed-return to sender."  The letter 
sent by first-class mail was not returned.  
¶17 In late March 2001 OLR filed a motion with this court 
seeking the temporary suspension of Attorney Cotten's license 
for willful failure to cooperate with the investigation of the 
grievance.  On April 4, 2001, this court entered an order 
requiring Attorney Cotten to show cause why OLR's motion should 
not be granted. Attorney Cotten filed no response.  On May 21, 
2001, this court entered an order temporarily suspending 
Attorney Cotten's license. 
¶18 The OLR's investigative file relating to the grievance 
was referred to an OLR local district committee.  Attorney 
Cotten initially responded to the committee investigator's phone 
message, scheduled and kept an appointment, and answered 
questions.  She also agreed to provide medical records from her 
treating physician and/or psychologist supporting her claim that 
she was severely depressed during the period complained of in 
the grievance.  She never provided that information. 
¶19 On July 26, 2001, the committee investigator sent a 
certified letter to Attorney Cotten at her residence and 
memorialized the understanding that Attorney Cotten was to have 
provided various information by June 27, 2001.  The committee 
investigator asked Attorney Cotten to submit the requested 
information no later than August 3, 2001.  Attorney Cotten never 
replied.  On August 12, 2001, the committee investigator's 
certified letter was returned, marked "unclaimed-return to 
sender." 
No. 
02-0496-D   
 
9 
 
¶20 The OLR's complaint also alleged that Attorney Cotten 
engaged in misconduct with respect to a case in which she 
undertook to represent a second client regarding a property 
issue relating to the estate of the client's deceased aunt.  As 
noted earlier in this opinion Attorney Cotten's license to 
practice law was administratively suspended effective June 5, 
2000, as a result of her noncompliance with mandatory CLE 
requirements.  On June 13, 2000, Attorney Cotten undertook the 
representation of the second client.  The fee agreement provided 
that the client would pay a $1150 retainer plus a case opening 
fee of $50.  The client's checks in those amounts cleared the 
client's checking account.   
¶21 The second client did not hear from Attorney Cotten 
after June 2000.  At the client's request a Missouri attorney 
wrote to Attorney Cotten in January 2001 requesting that she 
either provide the client with a report on the status of the 
case or refund the retainer.  Attorney Cotten never responded to 
the letter nor did she respond to letters from OLR intake staff 
sent to her after the client filed a grievance.  
¶22 The OLR filed a complaint against Attorney Cotten on 
February 20, 2002.  William Eich was appointed as referee.  
Attorney Cotten did not file an answer.  The OLR moved for 
default judgment, and a hearing was held on April 15, 2002.  
Counsel for OLR and Attorney Cotten appeared at the hearing and 
informed the referee they expected to reach a stipulated 
settlement of the matter within a few weeks.  The hearing was 
adjourned indefinitely.  Attorney Cotten and OLR entered into a 
No. 
02-0496-D   
 
10 
 
stipulation, pursuant to SCR 22.12(1),1 on May 3, 2002.  The 
stipulation stated that it was filed with the request that 
Referee Eich approve it and file a report and recommendation 
consistent therewith.  
¶23 With respect to Attorney Cotten's representation of 
the first client, the referee concluded that by preparing 
answers to interrogatories that were so unresponsive that the 
presiding court stated the answers were "astonishing," Attorney 
Cotten failed to employ the requisite legal knowledge, skill, 
thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the 
representation, in violation of SCR 20:1.1.2 
¶24 The referee also concluded that by discontinuing work 
on the first client's lawsuit, including failing to respond to 
discovery requests, which resulted in the court's dismissal of 
the client's lawsuit, Attorney Cotten failed to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in 
violation of SCR 20:1.3.3  The referee further concluded that by 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.12(1) provides: "(1) The director may file with the 
complaint a stipulation of the director and the respondent to 
the 
facts, 
conclusions 
of 
law 
regarding 
misconduct, 
and 
discipline to be imposed.  The supreme court may consider the 
complaint and stipulation without the appointment of a referee." 
All subsequent references will be to the current version of 
the supreme court rules unless otherwise noted.   
2 SCR 20:1.1 provides:  "Competence. A lawyer shall provide 
competent representation to a client.  Competent representation 
requires 
the 
legal 
knowledge, 
skill, 
thoroughness 
and 
preparation reasonably necessary for the representation." 
3 SCR 20:1.3 provides: "Diligence. A lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client."  
No. 
02-0496-D   
 
11 
 
failing to inform the first client of the events that had 
occurred in the case, including failing to tell her that the 
client had missed deadlines and that the client's case had been 
dismissed, Attorney Cotten failed to keep her client reasonably 
informed about the status of a matter, in violation of SCR 
20:1.4(a).4 
¶25 The referee also found that by failing to withdraw 
from representing the first client when Attorney Cotten suffered 
from depression that purportedly rendered her unable to answer 
phone calls, open mail or make court appearances, Attorney 
Cotten violated SCR 20:1.16(a)(2),5 which requires a lawyer to 
withdraw from the representation of a client if the lawyer's 
physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer's 
ability to represent the client.  The referee found that by 
failing or refusing to return several audiotapes belonging to 
the first client after the lawsuit had been dismissed, Attorney 
Cotten violated SCR 20:1.16(d),6 which requires a lawyer, upon 
                                                 
4 SCR 20:1.4(a) provides: "(a) A lawyer shall keep a client 
reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly 
comply with reasonable requests for information." 
5 SCR 20:1.16(a)(2) provides: 
(a) Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer 
shall not represent a client or, where representation 
has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation 
of a client if:  
(2) the lawyer's physical or mental condition 
materially impairs the lawyer's ability to represent 
the client. 
6 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides: 
No. 
02-0496-D   
 
12 
 
termination of representation, to surrender property to which 
the client is entitled.   
¶26 The referee further concluded that by telling the 
first client the case was proceeding smoothly when, in fact, 
Attorney Cotten was missing deadlines, failing to respond to the 
court, and the case had been dismissed, Attorney Cotten engaged 
in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit 
or 
misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).7  The referee 
further found that by failing to ever provide a written response 
to 
the 
grievance 
and 
by 
failing 
to 
provide 
additional 
information requested by the district committee investigator, 
Attorney Cotten violated SCR 21.15(4),8 SCR 22.001(9)(b),9 SCR 
                                                                                                                                                             
(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.  
7 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides: "It is professional misconduct for 
a lawyer to: (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
8 SCR 21.15(4) provides: 
(4) Every 
attorney 
shall 
cooperate 
with 
the 
office of lawyer regulation in the investigation, 
prosecution and disposition of grievances, complaints 
filed with or by the director, and petitions for 
reinstatement. 
An 
attorney's 
wilful 
failure 
to 
cooperate 
with 
the 
office 
of 
lawyer 
regulation 
constitutes violation of the rules of professional 
conduct for attorneys. 
No. 
02-0496-D   
 
13 
 
22.03(2),10 and 22.03(6).11  The referee also concluded that by 
failing to respond to OLR staff's September 7, 1999, letter 
requesting a written response to the grievance within 20 days of 
her receipt of the letter, Attorney Cotten violated former SCR 
22.07(2).12 
                                                                                                                                                             
9 SCR 22.001(9)(b) provides: 
(9) "Misconduct" means any of the following: 
(b) Failure to cooperate in the investigation of a 
grievance. 
10 SCR 22.03(2) provides:  
(2) Upon 
commencing 
an 
investigation, 
the 
director shall notify the respondent of the matter 
being investigated unless in the opinion of the 
director the investigation of the matter requires 
otherwise. The respondent shall fully and fairly 
disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to the 
alleged misconduct within 20 days after being served 
by ordinary mail a request for a written response. The 
director 
may 
allow 
additional 
time 
to 
respond. 
Following receipt of the response, the director may 
conduct further investigation and may compel the 
respondent to answer questions, furnish documents, and 
present 
any 
information 
deemed 
relevant 
to 
the 
investigation. 
11 SCR 
22.03(6) 
provides: 
"(6) In 
the 
course 
of 
the 
investigation, 
the 
respondent's wilful 
failure 
to provide 
relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish 
documents and the respondent's misrepresentation in a disclosure 
are misconduct, regardless of the merits of the matters asserted 
in the grievance." 
12 Former SCR 22.07(2) 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 
No. 
02-0496-D   
 
14 
 
¶27 The referee also found that by accepting a retainer 
and filing fee and undertaking to represent the second client 
while her license was suspended for failing to comply with 
mandatory 
CLE 
requirements, 
Attorney 
Cotten 
violated 
SCR 
31.10(1).13  The referee also concluded that by failing to 
respond to the second client or her Missouri attorney, and by 
failing to return the retainer of $1150 as requested by the 
Missouri attorney on the client's behalf, and by failing to 
return the $50 case opening fee, Attorney Cotten violated SCR 
20:1.16(d).  The referee also concluded that by failing to 
                                                                                                                                                             
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. 
13 SCR 31.10(1) provides: 
(1) If 
a 
lawyer 
fails 
to 
comply 
with 
the 
attendance requirement of SCR 31.02, fails to comply 
with the reporting requirement of SCR 31.03(1), or 
fails to pay the late fee under SCR 31.03(2), the 
board shall serve a notice of noncompliance on the 
lawyer. This notice shall advise the lawyer that the 
state 
bar 
membership 
of 
the 
lawyer 
shall 
be 
automatically suspended for failing to file evidence 
of compliance or to pay the late fee within 60 days 
after service of the notice. The board shall certify 
the names of all lawyers so suspended under this rule 
to the clerk of the supreme court and to each judge of 
a court of record in this state. A lawyer shall not 
engage in the practice of law in Wisconsin while his 
or her state bar membership is suspended under this 
rule.  
No. 
02-0496-D   
 
15 
 
respond to a grievance investigative request by OLR staff 
concerning the second client, Attorney Cotten violated SCR 
21:15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b), SCR 22.03(2), and SCR 22.03(6).  
¶28 The referee recommended that Attorney Cotten's license 
to practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for one year, that she 
be ordered to make restitution to the second client in the 
amount of $1200, and that she be ordered to pay the costs of the 
proceedings.  
¶29 We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law 
as set forth in the referee's report and recommendation.  
Attorney Cotten's misconduct with respect to her handling of the 
two client matters and her failure to cooperate with the OLR's 
investigation are serious failings warranting a suspension of 
her license.  A one-year suspension of her license to practice 
law is appropriate discipline for her professional misconduct. 
¶30 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Susan M. 
Cotten to practice law in Wisconsin remains suspended for a 
period of one additional year, effective the date of this order. 
¶31 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Susan M. Cotten 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended. 
¶32 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Susan M. Cotten 
refund, within 60 days of the date of this order, $1200 paid by 
the second client for her representation in a probate matter.  
If this refund is not made within the specified time, the 
No. 
02-0496-D   
 
16 
 
license of Attorney Susan M. Cotten to practice law in Wisconsin 
shall remain suspended until further order of the court.  
¶33 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Attorney Susan M. Cotten 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 her inability to pay the costs within that time, 
the license of Attorney Susan M. Cotten to practice law in 
Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of the 
court.   
¶34 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that restitution to the second 
client is to be paid prior to paying costs to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation.  
¶35 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J., did not participate.  
No. 
02-0496-D   
 
 
 
1