Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Clay F. Teasdale

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2005 WI 12 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
04-0322-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Clay F. Teasdale, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Clay F. Teasdale,  
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST TEASDALE 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
February 16, 2005   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2005 WI 12 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  04-0322-D   
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Clay F. Teasdale, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Clay F. Teasdale,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
FEB 16, 2005 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the 
referee that Attorney Clay F. Teasdale be publicly reprimanded 
for having committed two counts of professional misconduct in 
connection with his representation of J.S. in a personal injury 
matter. In addition, the referee recommended that Attorney 
Teasdale be required to pay restitution to the client, as well 
as the costs of this disciplinary proceeding.  
 
 
04-0322-D 
 
 
 
 
2
¶2 
We 
determine 
that 
the 
seriousness 
of 
Attorney 
Teasdale's professional misconduct warrants a public reprimand. 
We also determine that Attorney Teasdale should be required to 
make restitution to his client, and we require Attorney Teasdale 
to pay the costs of this proceeding. 
¶3 
Attorney 
Teasdale 
was 
admitted 
to 
practice 
in 
Wisconsin in 1983.  He has been temporarily suspended from the 
practice of law in Wisconsin since January 23, 2004, for failure 
to respond to or otherwise cooperate with a disciplinary 
investigation unrelated to the instant matter.  Attorney 
Teasdale has not sought reinstatement.  He has one previous 
public reprimand.1   
¶4 
Paragraph deleted.  
¶5 
Paragraph deleted. 
¶6 
On February 2, 2004, the OLR filed a complaint against 
Attorney Teasdale.  The matter was submitted to a referee.  
Teasdale answered and appeared pro se but did not participate 
after the issuance of a scheduling order on March 15, 2004.  The 
record reflected that he has not "participate[d] in a meaningful 
way in this case before the Referee."   
                                                 
1 In 1995, Attorney Teasdale consented to the (former) Board 
of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (BAPR)'s imposition of 
a public reprimand for failing to file a timely notice of 
appeal, failing to comply with a client's reasonable requests 
for information regarding the appeal, failing to inform his 
client of a magistrate's recommendation for a denial of 
disability benefits and of the court's dismissal, and for 
failing to cooperate with BAPR's investigation. 
 
 
04-0322-D 
 
 
 
 
3
¶7 
The complaint filed by the OLR alleged two counts of 
misconduct 
committed 
in 
connection 
with 
Teasdale's 
representation of J.S. in a personal injury matter.  The 
complaint alleged that Attorney Teasdale filed a complaint on 
J.S.'s behalf in June 1997.  On June 9, 1998, defense counsel 
served 
Teasdale 
with 
a 
deposition 
notice 
for 
J.S.; 
the 
deposition was to be conducted on June 16, 1998.  On June 9, 
1998, defense counsel attempted to contact Attorney Teasdale by 
telephone, but received a message that Attorney Teasdale's 
telephone was "temporarily disconnected."  Defense counsel heard 
nothing from Teasdale.  Teasdale did not inform his client of 
the scheduled deposition and neither Teasdale nor his client 
appeared at the deposition.  Defense counsel later learned that 
Teasdale had relocated his practice from Marinette, Wisconsin to 
Menominee, Michigan.  
¶8 
Opposing 
counsel 
then filed 
and 
served Attorney 
Teasdale with a motion for costs based on the failure to produce 
J.S. for the deposition.  Teasdale failed to inform his client 
of the motion, but appeared at the hearing.  The court issued an 
order directing Teasdale to pay $426.35 in costs in connection 
with the matter.  Attorney Teasdale did not inform his client of 
this order.   
¶9 
Subsequently, the personal injury matter settled, and 
appropriate checks were sent to Attorney Teasdale, along with a 
draft stipulation and order for dismissal.  However, Teasdale 
rejected the draft and proposed a release that dismissed the 
action "on the merits with prejudice and without further 
 
 
04-0322-D 
 
 
 
 
4
costs..."  Opposing counsel rejected this proposal because 
Attorney Teasdale had not yet paid the $426 costs previously 
ordered by the court.  Opposing counsel forwarded the judgment 
for costs to the court.  Teasdale filed an objection to the 
judgment for costs, asserting that the matter had been dismissed 
without costs, which was not accurate because opposing counsel 
had not signed the draft release proposed by Teasdale.   
¶10 On February 26, 1999, the court executed the judgment 
for costs and advised Teasdale, in writing, that the earlier 
order "clearly states that the plaintiff shall pay to the 
defendant the sum of $426.35."  Attorney Teasdale did not notify 
his client of this judgment for costs.  Indeed, J.S. did not 
learn of the judgment until he applied for a bank loan, and 
ultimately paid the judgment himself in order to clear his 
credit status.  The record does not reflect that Attorney 
Teasdale ever reimbursed J.S. for these costs. 
¶11 The OLR alleged and the referee found that by failing 
to respond to the deposition notice, Attorney Teasdale failed to 
make a reasonably diligent effort to comply with a legally 
proper discovery request in violation of SCR 20:3.4(d).2  The OLR 
also alleged and the referee found further that by failing to 
notify his client of the deposition, Attorney Teasdale failed to 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:3.4(d) provides that "[a] lawyer shall not in 
pretrial procedure, make a frivolous discovery request or fail 
to make reasonably diligent effort to comply with a legally 
proper discovery request by an opposing party." 
 
 
04-0322-D 
 
 
 
 
5
keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter 
in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a).3   
¶12 The 
referee recommended that 
the 
court publicly 
reprimand Attorney Teasdale. In making that recommendation, the 
referee observed that a public reprimand was consistent with 
established 
legal 
precedent. 
In 
addition, 
the 
referee 
recommended 
that 
Attorney 
Teasdale 
be 
required 
to 
pay 
restitution to his client, as well as the costs of this 
proceeding. 
¶13 We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law and determine that a public reprimand is the 
appropriate discipline to impose on Attorney Teasdale for the 
professional misconduct established in this proceeding.  We also 
adopt the recommendation that Attorney Teasdale be required to 
pay the costs of the OLR prosecution, as well as restitution to 
his client, J.S. 
¶14 IT IS ORDERED that Clay F. Teasdale is publicly 
reprimanded as discipline for professional misconduct. 
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Attorney Clay F. Teasdale make restitution to his 
former client in the amount of $426.35, plus post-judgment 
interest, provided that if the restitution is not made within 
the time specified and absent a showing to this court of his 
                                                 
3 SCR 20:1.4(a) provides that a "lawyer shall keep a client 
reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly 
comply 
with 
reasonable 
requests 
for 
information." 
  
 
 
04-0322-D 
 
 
 
 
6
inability to make the restitution within that time, the license 
of Clay F. Teasdale to practice law in Wisconsin shall be 
suspended until further order of the court.  
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Clay F. Teasdale pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation 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 Clay F. Teasdale to practice law in 
Wisconsin shall be suspended until further order of the court.