Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Robert T. Malloy

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2002 WI 52 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
01-1480-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Robert T. Malloy, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
Complainant, 
 
v. 
Robert T. Malloy,  
 
Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MALLOY 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
May 24, 2002   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2002 WI 52 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No. 01-1480-D  
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Robert T. Malloy, Attorney at  
Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Robert T. Malloy,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAY 24, 2002 
 
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 Robert T. Malloy, whose license to 
practice law is already suspended, receive a public reprimand 
for 
professional 
misconduct. 
In 
addition, 
the 
referee 
recommended 
that 
Attorney 
Malloy 
pay 
the 
costs 
of 
this 
proceeding. 
No. 
01-1480-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
We determine that a public reprimand is appropriate 
discipline for Attorney Malloy's misconduct.  We also order 
Attorney Malloy to pay the costs of this proceeding. 
¶3 
The misconduct involved in this matter stems from 
Attorney Malloy's representation of a client in a divorce 
proceeding and consists of failing to act with reasonable 
diligence in representing a client and failing to surrender 
papers and property to which a former client is entitled. 
¶4 
Attorney Malloy was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1992.  He has a significant disciplinary history, 
which was summarized in a stipulation executed by Attorney 
Malloy and the Office of Lawyer Regulation (Board)1 as follows: 
• In 1997, the Supreme Court suspended Attorney 
Malloy's license for three months, consecutive to 
an earlier one-year suspension (see bullet-point 
below), as discipline for his failure to act with 
reasonable 
diligence 
and 
promptness 
in 
representing 
clients, 
failing 
to 
return 
a 
client's 
unearned 
fee 
upon 
termination 
of 
representation, failing to comply promptly with 
reasonable requests for information and keep 
clients reasonably informed of the status of 
their legal matters he was handling, and failing 
to respond to the (former) Board of Attorneys 
Professional 
Responsibility 
(Board) 
in 
its 
                                                 
1 Effective 
October 
1, 
2000, 
Wisconsin's 
attorney 
disciplinary process underwent a substantial restructuring.  The 
name of the body responsible for investigating and prosecuting 
cases involving attorney misconduct was changed from Board of 
Attorneys Professional Responsibility (BAPR) to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and the supreme court rules applicable 
to the lawyer regulation system were also revised.  Most of the 
conduct giving rise to this complaint occurred prior to October 
1, 2000.  The investigating body will be referred to herein as 
the "Board."  However, references to supreme court rules will be 
to those currently in effect unless specifically noted. 
No. 
01-1480-D   
 
3 
 
investigation 
of 
misconduct 
allegations.  
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Malloy, 
212 Wis. 2d 649, 568 N.W.2d 638 (1997). 
• Earlier in 1997, the Supreme Court suspended 
Attorney 
Malloy's 
license 
for 
one 
year 
as 
discipline for his mishandling client funds and 
commingling for his own funds with them, failing 
to keep required trust account records, failing 
to 
respond 
to 
requests 
from 
clients 
for 
information concerning their matters, repeatedly 
failing to file or pursue legal matters for which 
he was retained, failing to refund unearned 
retainers promptly, and his repeated failure to 
cooperate with the Board in its investigation of 
client 
grievances. 
 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against Malloy, 209 Wis. 2d 264, 562 N.W.2d 147 
(1997). 
• In 1994, Attorney Malloy consented to a public 
reprimand 
from 
the 
Board 
as discipline for 
failing to appear at municipal court trials on 
behalf of three clients, failing to appear at a 
hearing on the court's order to show cause why he 
should not be held in contempt for his failure to 
appear at one of those trials, failing to 
maintain complete and accurate trust account 
records 
of 
clients 
funds, 
commingling 
his 
personal and business funds with client funds in 
his trust account, and continuing to practice law 
while administratively suspended for nonpayment 
of State Bar dues. 
¶5 
More recently, by order dated September 21, 2001, this 
court denied Attorney Malloy's petition for reinstatement of his 
license to practice law.    
¶6 
Turning to the matter presently before the court, the 
referee's factual findings are also derived from the stipulation 
executed by the parties.  The client hired Attorney Malloy on 
August 10, 1993, to represent her in a divorce proceeding.  The 
court granted the client's divorce on August 17, 1994.  As the 
No. 
01-1480-D   
 
4 
 
attorney for the moving party, Attorney Malloy was required to 
draft and file findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a 
written judgment within 30 days after the divorce judgment was 
granted.  Wis. Stat. § 767.37(1)(a).  He failed to do so.  In 
fact, he never filed the documents.   
¶7 
On December 27, 1995, approximately 19 months after 
the court had granted the divorce, the circuit court sent 
Attorney Malloy a letter advising him that he had failed to file 
the documents and directing him to file them within 15 days.  
Attorney Malloy spoke to the judge's law clerk and indicated 
that he was having difficulty accomplishing this task.  In any 
event, he neither filed the documents nor otherwise responded to 
the court's letter.  The client also asked Attorney Malloy to 
file the necessary documents.  Again he failed to do so.  
Because of Attorney Malloy's failure to file the documents, the 
client was unable to file a contempt motion against her ex-
husband for failure to pay child support that had been ordered 
by the court at the hearing on August 17, 1994. 
¶8 
In 1997 the client consulted another lawyer about 
filing the necessary documents to finalize her divorce.  The 
lawyer made several attempts to communicate with Attorney Malloy 
about obtaining the client's file but Attorney Malloy failed to 
return his phone calls and failed to give him the file.   On May 
12, 1997, the client's new lawyer wrote the trial court advising 
the court of the difficulty he was having obtaining the file.  
He copied Attorney Malloy on the letter.  Attorney Malloy never 
provided either the lawyer or the client with her file. 
No. 
01-1480-D   
 
5 
 
¶9 
In August 1997 Attorney Malloy advised the Board that 
he was sending the file to the client's new lawyer, but he 
failed to do so. 
¶10 Ultimately, in order to finalize her divorce, the 
client was required to pay for a transcript of the August 17, 
1994, hearing.  After receiving the transcript she filed pro se 
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and written judgment in 
February 1998——three and a half years after the court had 
granted her divorce. 
¶11 On June 1, 2001, the Board commenced this disciplinary 
proceeding with the filing of a complaint against Attorney 
Malloy.  The complaint alleged that Attorney Malloy had engaged 
in two counts of professional misconduct.   
¶12 First, the Board alleged that Attorney Malloy violated 
SCR 20:1.16(d) by failing to surrender papers and property to 
which a former client is entitled.2  Second, the Board alleged 
that Attorney Malloy violated SCR 20:1.3 by failing to act with 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides that: 
(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. 
No. 
01-1480-D   
 
6 
 
reasonable diligence in representing a client.3  Attorney Malloy 
filed an answer generally denying the allegations.   
¶13 On October 30, 2001, the parties filed a jointly 
executed stipulation agreeing to the facts set forth above and 
stating that it was further agreed that an appropriate level of 
discipline for Attorney Malloy's professional misconduct was 
imposition of a public reprimand and an order that Attorney 
Malloy pay the costs of the proceeding.  The stipulation 
explicitly notes that it was not the result of a plea bargain 
and that it reflected neither a reduction of the charges nor a 
reduction of the level of discipline originally sought by the 
Board.   
¶14 The referee issued written findings of fact and 
conclusions of law consistent with the terms of the stipulation, 
concluding, on the basis of the facts set forth on the 
stipulation, that Attorney Malloy violated SCR 20:1.3 and SCR 
20:1.16(d).  Attorney Malloy did not appeal the report and 
recommendation. 
¶15 On February 21, 2002, this court issued an order to 
show cause, directing the Board and Attorney Malloy to explain 
why more severe discipline, and/or restitution to the client 
should not be imposed by the court.  The parties responded to 
the satisfaction of the court, with the Board explaining that it 
did not discern uncompensated harm to the client with enough 
clarity to request restitution in this case. 
                                                 
3 SCR 20:1.3 provides: "Diligence. A lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
No. 
01-1480-D   
 
7 
 
¶16 Accordingly, we adopt the referee's findings of fact, 
conclusions of law, and recommendation with respect to Attorney 
Malloy.  Attorney Malloy's misconduct with respect to his 
handling of this matter is a serious failing.  As discipline for 
the professional misconduct we impose a public reprimand and 
order Attorney Malloy to pay the costs of this proceeding, as 
recommended by the referee. 
¶17 IT IS ORDERED that Attorney Robert T. Malloy be 
publicly reprimanded for his professional misconduct. 
¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Attorney Robert T. Malloy shall pay to the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding in the amount 
of $1266.74.  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 Attorney 
Robert T. Malloy to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain 
suspended until further order of the court. 
No. 
01-1480-D   
 
 
 
1