Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Michelle L. Danielson

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2006 WI 33 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2005AP1903-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Michelle L. Danielson,  Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Michelle L. Danielson, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST DANIELSON 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
April 28, 2006   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2006 WI 33
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2005AP1903-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Michelle L. Danielson, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Michelle L. Danielson, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
APR 28, 2006 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the 
referee that Attorney Michelle L. Danielson's license to 
practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for six months for 
professional misconduct.  The misconduct consists of failing to 
fulfill her obligations with respect to acting with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client, keeping the 
client reasonably informed of the status of his matter, promptly 
complying with client requests for information, taking steps to 
No. 
2005AP1903-D   
 
2 
 
the extent reasonably practical to protect a client's interests 
upon termination of representation, responding to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation (OLR), and filing a post-suspension affidavit 
with the OLR within 25 days of suspension.  The referee also 
recommended that Attorney Danielson be required to refund a $500 
retainer and to pay the costs of this proceeding.  The OLR has 
reported costs of $2717.52 as of February 6, 2006.   
¶2 
We 
determine 
that 
the 
seriousness 
of 
Attorney 
Danielson's professional misconduct warrants a suspension of her 
license to practice law for six months.  Attorney Danielson was 
admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in 1996.  She has not been 
previously disciplined, although on November 1, 2004, Attorney 
Danielson was suspended by the Wisconsin Supreme Court for 
nonpayment of mandatory bar dues.   
¶3 
On January 11, 2005, Attorney Danielson received a 
temporary suspension order from the Wisconsin Supreme Court for 
her failure to cooperate with the OLR and her failure to respond 
to an order to show cause.  Attorney Danielson did not notify 
her client of either suspension and Attorney Danielson did not 
comply with duties following suspension or revocation as 
detailed in SCR 22.26.   
¶4 
In October 2002 a client, J.B., retained Attorney 
Danielson as counsel in an insurance dispute.  A written 
retainer agreement was signed and Attorney Danielson accepted a 
$500 retainer.  Attorney Danielson did not provide legal 
services and in the fall of 2003 the client was advised that 
Attorney Danielson's phone had been disconnected.  All letters 
No. 
2005AP1903-D   
 
3 
 
the client sent to Attorney Danielson were not returned, nor 
were they responded to by Attorney Danielson.  In August 2004 
the client filed a grievance with the OLR against Attorney 
Danielson.  Attorney Danielson did not respond to the OLR's 
correspondence.   
¶5 
The 
OLR 
filed 
a 
six-count 
complaint 
alleging 
professional misconduct.  Dennis J. Flynn was appointed referee.  
Attorney Danielson did not file an answer to the complaint and 
did not otherwise appear in this disciplinary proceeding.  At 
the December 27, 2005, hearing on the OLR's motion for default 
judgment, the referee found Attorney Danielson in default.   
¶6 
The referee concluded that by failing to advance her 
client's interests in pursuit of his insurance claim and by 
failing to do any discernible work in the matter, Attorney 
Danielson 
failed 
to 
"act 
with 
reasonable 
diligence 
and 
promptness in representing a client," contrary to SCR 20:1.3.  
As a second count, the referee concluded that by failing to 
communicate with the client about the status of his matter and 
by failing to respond to his telephone and written inquiries, 
Attorney Danielson failed to "keep a client reasonably informed 
about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable 
requests for information," contrary to SCR 20:1.4(a).  In a 
third count, the referee found that by failing to refund the 
client's $500 retainer when she performed no services for him, 
Attorney 
Danielson 
failed 
to 
"take 
steps 
to 
the 
extent 
reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests" upon 
termination of representation, contrary to SCR 20:1.16(d).  The 
No. 
2005AP1903-D   
 
4 
 
referee further found that with respect to the fourth count, by 
failing to provide a written response to the OLR concerning the 
client's grievance and by willfully failing to provide relevant 
information to the OLR or to fully answer the OLR's questions 
during the course of the investigation of the grievance, 
Attorney Danielson violated supreme court rules regarding a 
lawyer's conduct, contrary to SCR 22.03(2) and (6),1 pursuant to 
SCR 20:8.4(f).2   
¶7 
The referee further concluded that by failing to 
notify the client by certified mail of her two suspensions and 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.03(2) and (6) state:  Investigation. 
 
(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. 
 
(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. 
2 SCR 20:8.4(f) states 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." 
No. 
2005AP1903-D   
 
5 
 
by failing to notify the client to seek legal advice elsewhere, 
Attorney Danielson violated supreme court rules regarding a 
lawyer's conduct, contrary to SCR 22.26(1)(a) and (b),3 pursuant 
to SCR 20:8.4(f).  Additionally, by failing to file a SCR 
22.26(1)(e) post-suspension affidavit with the OLR within 25 
days of her suspension, the referee concluded Attorney Danielson 
violated SCR 22.26(1)(e),4 pursuant to SCR 20:8.4(f).   
                                                 
3 SCR 
22.26(1) 
states 
in 
relevant 
part: 
 
Activities 
following suspension or revocation. 
 
(1) On or before the effective date of license 
suspension or revocation, an attorney whose license is 
suspended or revoked shall do all of the following: 
 
(a) Notify by certified mail all clients 
being represented in pending matters of the suspension 
or 
revocation 
and 
of 
the 
attorney's 
consequent 
inability 
to 
act 
as 
an 
attorney 
following 
the 
effective date of the suspension or revocation. 
 
(b) Advise the clients to seek legal advice 
of their choice elsewhere. 
4 SCR 22.26(1)(e) states: Activities following suspension or 
revocation. 
(e) Within 25 days after the effective date of 
suspension or revocation, file with the director an 
affidavit showing all of the following: 
 
(i) Full compliance with the provisions of 
the suspension or revocation order and with the rules 
and procedures regarding the closing of the attorney's 
practice. 
 
(ii) A list of all jurisdictions, including 
state, federal and administrative bodies, before which 
the attorney is admitted to practice. 
 
(iii) A list of clients in all pending 
matters and a list of all matters pending before any 
No. 
2005AP1903-D   
 
6 
 
¶8 
The referee's fact findings will not be set aside 
unless clearly erroneous.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Carroll, 2001 WI 130, ¶29, 248 Wis. 2d 662, 636 N.W.2d 
718.  We review conclusions of law de novo.  Id.  We consider 
the referee's recommendation as to appropriate discipline, but 
do not accord it conclusive or great weight.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 
Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.  It is this court's responsibility 
to 
determine 
appropriate 
discipline 
and 
in 
making 
that 
determination, this court may impose discipline more or less 
severe than recommended.   
¶9 
We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law 
set forth in the referee's report.  We conclude that the 
seriousness of Attorney Danielson's misconduct as established in 
this proceeding warrants a suspension of her license to practice 
law for a period of six months.  We agree with the referee's 
recommendation that restitution, costs, and eight hours of 
ethics education should be required. 
¶10 We further conclude that under the circumstances of 
this case, Attorney Danielson's suspension should date from 
January 11, 2005.   
¶11 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Michelle L. 
Danielson to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period 
of six months, effective January 11, 2005. 
                                                                                                                                                             
court or administrative agency, together with the case 
number of each matter. 
No. 
2005AP1903-D   
 
7 
 
¶12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Michelle L. 
Danielson comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the 
duties of a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin 
has been suspended.   
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Michelle L. 
Danielson refund, within 60 days of the date of this order, the 
$500 retainer paid by her client, J.B.  If this refund is not 
paid within the specified time, the license of Attorney 
Danielson to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended 
until further order of this court.   
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Attorney Michelle L. Danielson shall 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 Danielson to practice law in 
Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of this 
court. 
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Danielson shall 
complete eight hours of ethics courses approved by the Wisconsin 
Board of Bar Examiners as a condition of her reinstatement.  If 
the course work is not completed, the license of Attorney 
Danielson to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended 
until further order of this court. 
No. 
2005AP1903-D   
 
 
 
1