Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Robert H. Paul

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2007 WI 11 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2006AP2132-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Robert H. Paul , Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Robert H. Paul, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PAUL 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
January 23, 2007   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2007 WI 11
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2006AP2132-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Robert H. Paul, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Robert H. Paul, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JAN 23, 2007 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of Supreme 
Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the stipulation filed by 
Attorney Robert H. Paul and the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) 
pursuant 
to 
SCR 
22.121 
concerning 
Attorney 
Paul's 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.12 states in relevant part:  Stipulation 
 
(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. 
No. 
2006AP2132-D   
 
2 
 
professional misconduct in his handling of personal injury and 
worker's compensation actions.  The parties stipulated that the 
appropriate discipline to impose is the suspension of Attorney 
Paul's license to practice law in Wisconsin for 60 days. 
¶2 
We approve this stipulation and adopt the stipulated 
facts and conclusions of law.  We agree that the seriousness of 
Attorney Paul's misconduct warrants the suspension of his 
license to practice law.  We also accept the parties' 
stipulation that a 60-day suspension is appropriate discipline.  
We further agree that Attorney Paul should be required to pay 
the costs of the proceeding, which are $472.20 as of November 6, 
2006. 
¶3 
Attorney 
Paul 
was 
admitted 
to 
practice 
law 
in 
Wisconsin in 1998.  He currently resides in Chicago, Illinois.  
His license to practice law has been suspended since June 6, 
2005, due to his failure to comply with mandatory continuing 
legal education (CLE) requirements.   
¶4 
The eight counts of misconduct detailed in the 
parties' 
stipulation 
all 
arise 
out 
of 
Attorney 
Paul's 
representation of D.T.  In March 2000 D.T. retained Attorney 
Paul to represent her in a personal injury action and a worker's 
compensation claim resulting from injuries she sustained in 
December 1999 from a horse at Heartland Stables in Custer, 
Wisconsin.  The stables were owned and operated by William and 
                                                                                                                                                             
 
(2) If the supreme court approves a stipulation, 
it shall adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of 
law and impose the stipulated discipline. 
No. 
2006AP2132-D   
 
3 
 
Elizabeth Foss.  D.T.'s medical expenses exceeded $100,000.  The 
worker's compensation claim was based on the theory that D.T., 
who was a college student at the time, worked at Heartland 
Stables in lieu of paying board for her two horses. 
¶5 
In August 2000 Attorney Paul filed a personal injury 
suit on D.T.'s behalf against the Fosses and Heartland Stables.  
Discovery was conducted.  At D.T.'s deposition she acknowledged 
she was aware of the statutory notices regarding an equine 
owner's liability that were posted at the stables.   
¶6 
In July 2001 Attorney Paul filed D.T.'s "uninsured 
employer's 
claim 
form" 
with 
the 
Department 
of 
Workforce 
Development, Worker's Compensation Division.  In his letter, 
Attorney Paul stated that a stipulation had been entered in the 
personal injury suit because the equine statute meant that D.T. 
did not have a claim against the Fosses for personal injury 
liability.  In fact, no such stipulation had been entered. 
¶7 
On August 22, 2001, the personal injury suit was 
dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a stipulation signed by 
Attorney Paul, acting on D.T.'s behalf, on August 14, 2001.  
Attorney Paul did not seek D.T.'s permission prior to signing 
this stipulation, did not inform her that he had filed the 
stipulation dismissing her case, and did not provide her with a 
copy of the stipulation.   
¶8 
In correspondence dated December 17, 2002, Attorney 
Paul advised the worker's compensation division that the insurer 
had denied D.T.'s claims for injuries and he requested a hearing 
on whether D.T. was employed at the stables and was paid more 
No. 
2006AP2132-D   
 
4 
 
than $500 per quarter at the time of the accident.  Attorney 
Paul did not inform D.T. that the insurer had denied her claim. 
¶9 
Between December 17, 2002, and June 12, 2003, Attorney 
Paul provided the worker's compensation division with D.T.'s 
medical bills, sent a medical authorization to the firm 
representing the uninsured employer's fund, and provided the 
worker's compensation division with a breakdown of medical costs 
related to D.T.'s injuries.  In May and June 2003 the firm 
representing the uninsured employer's fund wrote to Attorney 
Paul requesting that D.T. sign a consent and authorization of 
disclosure of confidential information form, provide a list of 
medical providers form and an employment authorization form.  
Attorney Paul failed to timely respond to those letters and 
failed to timely provide D.T. with the forms she was to 
complete.  The firm representing the fund wrote to Attorney Paul 
again in September and October 2003 requesting information.  
Attorney Paul failed to respond. 
¶10 On November 7, 2003, the firm representing the fund 
wrote to the worker's compensation division asking that the 
matter be dismissed due to D.T.'s failure to cooperate with the 
fund's investigation.  On November 19, 2003, the administrative 
law judge (ALJ) advised Attorney Paul to respond or he would 
assume that Attorney Paul did not object to the dismissal of the 
case.  Attorney Paul responded to the request on December 3, 
2003. 
¶11 Due to D.T.'s inability to communicate with Attorney 
Paul, D.T. scheduled a meeting with Attorney Paul and her uncle, 
No. 
2006AP2132-D   
 
5 
 
W.G.  At the meeting Attorney Paul discussed with D.T. and W.G. 
the need to prove D.T. had received sufficient compensation to 
qualify for worker's compensation benefits.  D.T. and W.G. 
provided Attorney Paul with names and contact information.  
During the meeting Attorney Paul informed W.G. that he "was 
working on getting the worker's comp case approved and hoped 
that would be faster than the PI case."  Attorney Paul did not 
inform D.T. or W.G. that the personal injury suit had been 
dismissed.   
¶12 In correspondence to the OLR dated June 20, 2005, 
Attorney Paul denied that he discussed the personal injury case 
with W.G. during the 2003 meeting.  Attorney Paul also informed 
the OLR he did not hear from either W.G. or D.T. after leaving a 
message for W.G. following the 2003 meeting.  However, after the 
meeting W.G. made six or eight phone calls to Attorney Paul, 
leaving messages with D.T.'s phone number and asking Attorney 
Paul to contact D.T.  Attorney Paul failed to contact D.T. after 
receiving those messages.  Between April and August 2004 D.T. 
attempted to contact Attorney Paul on numerous occasions and 
left him numerous detailed phone messages but could never reach 
him. 
¶13 D.T. contacted Attorney Christopher Van Wagner to 
assist her in attempting to reach Attorney Paul.  Between 
September 27, 2004, and October 6, 2004, Attorney Van Wagner 
attempted to contact Attorney Paul by telephone but never 
received a return phone call.  On September 30, 2004, Attorney 
Van Wagner e-mailed Attorney Paul at the e-mail address listed 
No. 
2006AP2132-D   
 
6 
 
for him in the 2004 State of Wisconsin bar directory.  Attorney 
Paul responded by telephone to Attorney Van Wagner by stating 
that "he had closed up shop, and that he was now living in 
Illinois during the week to assist his ailing father."  Attorney 
Paul had not informed D.T. that he had moved to Illinois.   
¶14 Attorney Paul informed Attorney Van Wagner that after 
D.T.'s deposition the circuit court threw out her personal 
injury action.  At first Attorney Paul indicated the dismissal 
had been involuntary but he later retracted that statement and 
said the case had been voluntarily dismissed.  This was the 
first time D.T. learned that her personal injury suit had been 
dismissed.   
¶15 In an October 7, 2004 e-mail to D.T., Attorney 
Van Wagner recounted his conversation with Attorney Paul, saying 
Attorney Paul asserted that the worker's compensation claim had 
been denied due to questions about whether or not D.T. was 
working at the stables at the time of the injury; that Attorney 
Paul said he had appealed to the State and was awaiting a 
decision; and that Attorney Paul later informed Attorney 
Van Wagner he had lost the appeal and was going to seek a 
rehearing.  Attorney Paul never advised D.T. that the worker's 
compensation claim had been denied, that he appealed and lost, 
or that he was seeking a rehearing.   
¶16 In November 2004 D.T. sent Attorney Paul a certified 
letter requesting her file.  The letter was returned because 
Attorney Paul did not sign for it.   
No. 
2006AP2132-D   
 
7 
 
¶17 The worker's compensation division scheduled a hearing 
in D.T.'s case for January 18, 2005.  By letter dated November 
12, 2004, the division notified Attorney Paul and D.T. of the 
hearing date.  Attorney Paul took no action on D.T.'s worker's 
compensation claim between December 3, 2003, and December 17, 
2004.  On December 17, 2004, the ALJ assigned to D.T.'s case 
dismissed it without prejudice due to lack of prosecution and 
the department's inability to contact either D.T. or Attorney 
Paul.  Attorney Paul failed to notify D.T. of the dismissal.   
¶18 On December 20, 2004, Attorney Lisa Pierobon Mays, as 
D.T.'s successor counsel, sent a letter to the worker's 
compensation division, signed by D.T., requesting a copy of 
D.T.'s file.  On December 21, 2004, Attorney Paul faxed a copy 
of an e-mail to the ALJ which he asserted he had sent to the ALJ 
on December 7, 2004.  In the letter Attorney Paul apologized for 
the ALJ's inability to reach him, indicated his father had 
suffered a medical emergency, and provided his Illinois contact 
information. 
¶19 On January 3, 2005, the ALJ rescinded the December 17, 
2004 order, dismissing the worker's compensation case for 
nonprosecution and reinstated D.T.'s application.  In January 
2005 Attorney Mays e-mailed Attorney Paul notifying him about 
D.T.'s decision to hire Attorney Mays.  Attorney Mays requested 
D.T.'s file.  Attorney Paul failed to contact either D.T. or 
Attorney Mays. 
¶20 On March 18, 2005, D.T. sent Attorney Paul a certified 
letter again requesting her file.  Attorney Paul again failed to 
No. 
2006AP2132-D   
 
8 
 
respond.  On April 21, 2005, after receiving correspondence from 
the OLR, Attorney Paul forwarded D.T.'s file to Attorney Mays.  
Due to Attorney Paul's failure to pursue D.T.'s claims, Attorney 
Paul caused a delay resulting in D.T.'s medical providers filing 
suit against her for her medical bills, which resulted in the 
possibility of D.T. filing for bankruptcy, as well as a delay in 
her ability to obtain additional surgery for her injuries. 
¶21 The parties' stipulation sets forth eight counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Paul's representation of 
D.T.: 
COUNT ONE:  [Attorney] Paul failed to abide by a 
client's 
decisions 
concerning 
the 
objectives 
of 
representation and consult with the client as to the 
means by which they are to be pursued, in violation of 
SCR 20:1.2(a).2 
COUNT TWO:  [Attorney] Paul failed to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a 
client, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a).3 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:1.2(a) provides:  Scope of representation 
 
(a) A lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions 
concerning the objectives of representation . . . and 
shall consult with the client as to the means by which 
they are to be pursued.  A lawyer shall inform a 
client of all offers of settlement and abide by a 
client's decision whether to accept an offer of 
settlement of a matter.  In a criminal case or any 
proceeding 
that 
could 
result 
in 
deprivation 
of 
liberty, the lawyer shall abide by the client's 
decision, after consultation with the lawyer, as to a 
plea to be entered, whether to waive jury trial and 
whether the client will testify. 
3 SCR 20:1.4(a) states that "[a] lawyer shall keep a client 
reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly 
comply with reasonable requests for information." 
No. 
2006AP2132-D   
 
9 
 
COUNT THREE:  [Attorney] Paul failed to keep a 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). 
COUNT FOUR:  [Attorney] Paul failed to explain a 
matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit 
the client to make informed decisions regarding the 
representation, in violation of SCR [20:]1.4(b).4 
COUNT FIVE:  [Attorney] Paul failed, upon termination 
of representation, to 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, in violation of SCR 
20:1.16(d).5 
COUNT SIX:  [Attorney] Paul knowingly made a false 
statement of fact or law to a tribunal, in violation 
of SCR 20:3.3(a)(1).6 
COUNT SEVEN:  [Attorney] Paul engaged in conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit 
or 
misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).7 
                                                 
4 SCR 20:1.4(b) states that "[a] lawyer shall explain a 
matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client 
to make informed decisions regarding the representation." 
5 SCR 
20:1.16(d) 
provides: 
 
Declining 
or 
terminating 
representation 
 
(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. 
6 SCR 
20:3.3(a)(1) provides that a lawyer shall not 
knowingly "make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal." 
No. 
2006AP2132-D   
 
10 
 
COUNT EIGHT:  [Attorney] Paul in the course of the 
investigation, 
made 
a 
misrepresentation 
in 
a 
disclosure, 
in 
violation 
of 
SCRs 
20:8.4(f)8 
and 
22.03(6).9 
¶22 As noted above, the stipulation states that the 
parties agree that an appropriate level of discipline is a 60-
day suspension of Attorney Paul's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin.  The stipulation states that its terms were not 
bargained for or negotiated between the parties.  Attorney Paul 
represents that he fully understands the misconduct allegations, 
he fully understands the ramifications should the court impose 
the stipulated level of discipline, he fully understands his 
right to contest the matter, he fully understands his right to 
consult with and retain counsel, and his entry into the 
stipulation is made knowingly and voluntarily.   
¶23 We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law 
to which the parties have stipulated concerning Attorney Paul's 
professional misconduct.  We determine that the seriousness of 
the misconduct warrants the suspension of Attorney Paul's 
                                                                                                                                                             
7 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
8 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme 
court order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of 
lawyers." 
9 SCR 22.03(6) provides the "[i]n 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." 
No. 
2006AP2132-D   
 
11 
 
license to practice law for 60 days.  We also conclude that 
Attorney Paul should be required to pay the costs of the 
proceeding. 
¶24 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Robert H. Paul to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, 
effective the date of this order.  This stipulation has no 
effect on Attorney Paul's administrative suspension arising out 
of his failure to comply with mandatory CLE requirements.   
¶25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Robert H. Paul 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended. 
¶26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Robert H. Paul 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 his inability to pay the costs within that time, the 
license of Robert H. Paul to practice law in Wisconsin shall 
remain suspended until further order of the court. 
 
No. 
2006AP2132-D   
 
 
 
1