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

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2005 WI 137 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2005AP203-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: 
September 13, 2005   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2005 WI 137
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2005AP203-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 
 
SEP 13, 2005 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
 
Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
¶1 
PER CURIUM.  We review a referee's recommendation that 
the license of Clay F. Teasdale to practice law in Wisconsin 
should be revoked as discipline for his professional misconduct.  
We agree that the egregious nature of Attorney Teasdale's 
professional misconduct warrants revocation.  This is the third 
time the court has had occasion to discipline Attorney Teasdale 
for 
professional 
misconduct 
and 
the 
extensive 
misconduct 
considered in this proceeding establishes his unfitness to be 
licensed to represent others in the Wisconsin legal system.  In 
No. 
2005AP203-D   
 
2 
 
addition, restitution to certain former clients is appropriate 
as set forth herein, and we further order Attorney Teasdale to 
pay the costs of this proceeding. 
¶2 
Attorney Teasdale was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1983.  He has been under temporary suspension since 
January 23, 2004, for willful failure to cooperate with an 
Office of 
Lawyer 
Regulation 
(OLR) 
grievance 
investigation 
concerning his conduct.  He has received two public reprimands.  
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.   
¶3 
In February 2005, Attorney Teasdale was publicly 
reprimanded for failing to respond to a deposition notice in 
violation of SCR 20:3.4(d), and for failing to notify his client 
of the deposition, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a).  He was 
ordered to pay restitution to the client.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Teasdale, 2005 WI 12, 278 
Wis. 2d 76, 692 N.W.2d 244. 
¶4 
The complaint filed by the OLR in the matter now 
before the court consisted of some 293 separately numbered 
paragraphs describing 75 counts of misconduct involving 21 
separate client matters, as well as one count stemming from an 
No. 
2005AP203-D   
 
3 
 
inquiry made by a circuit court judge regarding Teasdale's 
conduct.  Teasdale repeatedly failed to participate in the 
disciplinary proceeding, despite efforts to engage him in the 
process.  Eventually, the OLR moved for a default judgment.  
That motion was granted on March 17, 2005.  Teasdale did not 
appeal from the ensuing report and recommendation filed by the 
referee, Timothy Vocke. 
¶5 
Because this matter comes before us in the context of 
a default judgment, the extensive allegations against Attorney 
Teasdale will be only briefly summarized here.  It is noteworthy 
that all 75 of the allegations of misconduct involved matters in 
which Attorney Teasdale: (1) continued to practice law despite 
being under suspension; (2) failed to inform his clients of this 
fact; and then (3) subsequently refused to cooperate when the 
OLR attempted to investigate the matter.  
¶6 
Other 
allegations 
made with 
respect 
to specific 
clients demonstrate that Attorney Teasdale failed to do any work 
on a matter, repeatedly failed to prepare written contingency 
fee agreements, repeatedly failed to keep clients informed as to 
the status of their cases, repeatedly failed to return client 
files or property or keep such property in trust, and repeatedly 
failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 
matters.  Consequently, the referee concluded, and we agree, 
that Attorney Teasdale violated numerous disciplinary rules.  
¶7 
More specifically, the referee concluded, and we 
agree, that Attorney Teasdale failed to act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client in violation 
No. 
2005AP203-D   
 
4 
 
of SCR 20:1.3 in the following three matters: J.W. (Count 1), 
J.C. (Count 29), and A.C. (Count 49). 
¶8 
The referee also concluded, and we agree, that 
Attorney Teasdale failed to keep a client reasonably informed 
about the status of the matter and promptly comply with 
reasonable 
requests 
for 
information 
in 
violation 
of 
SCR 
20:1.4(a) in the following matters: J.W. (Count 2), D.B. (Count 
24), J.C. (Count 30), M.S. (Count 32), R.K. (Count 36), D.J. 
(Count 38), H.B. (Count 41), A.C. (Count 50), C.B. (Count 55), 
M.L.T. (Count 59), and V.W. (Count 67). 
¶9 
The referee concluded, and we agree, that Attorney 
Teasdale failed to prepare a written contingency fee agreement 
in violation of SCR 20:1.5(c) in each of the following matters: 
C.L. (Count 17), D.B. (Count 23), J.C. (Count 28), R.K. (Count 
35), and A.C. (Count 48). 
¶10 In addition, the referee concluded, and we agree, that 
Attorney Teasdale failed to hold in trust, separate from his own 
property, his client's property that was in his possession in 
connection with a representation in violation of SCR 20:1.15(a) 
in the following matters: E.C. (Count 5), A.C. (Count 51), and 
M.L.T. (Count 60). 
¶11 The referee concluded, and we agree, that Attorney 
Teasdale 
failed, 
upon 
termination 
of 
representation, 
to 
surrender property and papers to which his client was entitled 
contrary to SCR 20:1.16(d) in the following matters: J.W. (Count 
3), E.C. (Count 6), D.B. (Count 25), H.B. (Count 42), R.L. 
No. 
2005AP203-D   
 
5 
 
(Count 45), A.C. (Count 52), C.B. (Count 56), M.L.T. (Count 61), 
N.W. (Count 64), and V.W. (Count 68). 
¶12 The referee also concluded, and we agree, that 
Teasdale failed to cooperate with the OLR's investigation 
contrary to SCR 21.15(4)1 and SCR 22.03(6)2 in violation of SCR 
20:8.4(f)3 in the following matters: J.W. (Count 4), Judge Miron 
(Count 10), D.M. (Count 12), B.D. (Count 14), N.K. (Count 16), 
C.L. (Count 19), C.S. (Count 22), D.B. (Count 27), J.C. (Count 
31), M.S. (Count 34), R.K. (Count 37), D.J. (Count 40), H.B. 
(Count 44), R.L. (Count 47), A.C. (Count 54), C.B. (Count 58), 
M.L.T. (Count 63), N.W. (Count 66), V.W. (Count 70), K.R. (Count 
73), and C.J. (Count 75). 
                                                 
1 SCR 21.15(4) provides: Duties of attorneys.  
(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.  
2 SCR 22.03(6) provides: 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."  
3 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides: Misconduct.  "It is professional 
misconduct for a lawyer to: (f) violate a statute, supreme court 
rule, supreme court order or supreme court decision regulating 
the conduct of lawyers."  
No. 
2005AP203-D   
 
6 
 
¶13 The referee concluded, and we agree, that Attorney 
Teasdale failed to comply with the requirements of a suspended 
attorney as outlined in SCR 22.26(1)(a)—(c)4 violating a supreme 
court rule regulating the conduct of lawyers, contrary to SCR 
20:8.4(f) in the following matters: E.C. (Count 7), Judge Miron 
inquiry (Count 8), B.D. (Count 13), N.K. (Count 15), C.L. (Count 
18), C.S. (Count 21), D.B. (Count 26), M.S. (Count 33), D.J. 
(Count 39), H.B. (Count 43), R.L. (Count 46), A.C. (Count 53), 
C.B. (Count 57), M.L.T. (Count 62), N.W. (Count 65), V.W. (Count 
69), and K.R. (Count 72). 
                                                 
4 SCR 22.26(1) provides in pertinent 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 . . . 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. 
(c) Promptly provide written notification to 
the court of administrative agency and the attorney 
for each party in a matter pending before a court or 
administrative agency 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.  The notice shall identify 
the successor attorney of the attorney's client or, if 
there is none at the time notice is given, shall state 
the client's place of residence. 
No. 
2005AP203-D   
 
7 
 
¶14 The referee also concluded, and we agree, that 
Teasdale failed to comply with the requirements of a suspended 
or revoked attorney as outlined in SCR 22.26(2),5 thus violating 
SCR 20.8.4(f) in the matter of Judge Miron (Count 9), D.M. 
(Count 11), C.S. (Count 20), K.R. (Count 71), and C.J. (Count 
74). 
¶15 Therefore, we adopt the referee's findings of fact, as 
they have not been shown to be clearly erroneous, and we adopt 
the conclusions of law based on those findings.  We note that 
the referee commented on several aggravating circumstances here, 
including Attorney Teasdale's prior discipline, the sheer number 
of disciplinary violations, and the fact that he left many 
clients "abandoned."  It is clear that revocation is warranted 
here and, as the referee noted, "Teasdale apparently does not 
care what happens to his license to practice law."  We agree 
with the referee that Attorney Teasdale, by his extensive 
misconduct in this proceeding, has established that he is unfit 
to be licensed to practice law.  
                                                 
5 SCR 22.26(2) provides: Activities following suspension or 
revocation: 
(2) An attorney whose license to practice law is 
suspended or revoked or who is suspended from the 
practice of law may not engage in this state in the 
practice 
of 
law 
or 
in 
any 
law 
work 
activity 
customarily done by law students, law clerks, or other 
paralegal personnel, except that the attorney may 
engage in law related work in this state for a 
commercial employer itself not engaged in the practice 
of law. 
No. 
2005AP203-D   
 
8 
 
¶16 The referee also recommended that we require Attorney 
Teasdale to pay restitution.  This court issued an order to show 
cause regarding the appropriate restitution for certain clients.  
Attorney Teasdale did not respond to the court's order.  Based 
on the record evidence before us and the response received from 
the OLR, we direct Attorney Teasdale to pay restitution to 
client J.W. in the amount of $300, to client A.C. in the amount 
of $100, and to client K.R. in the amount of $200. 
¶17 In addition, the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client 
Security (WLF), f/k/a the "Client Security Fund" approved 
reimbursement of unearned fees owed to three of Teasdale's 
clients. 
 
See 
Complaint 
at 
¶28 
(noting 
CSF 
approved 
reimbursement of $950 for E.C.); ¶243 (approving reimbursement 
of $925 for M.L.T.); ¶291 (approving reimbursement of $500 for 
C.J.).  We therefore direct Attorney Teasdale to compensate the 
WLF in the amount of $2,375.6  Finally, we adopt the referee's 
recommendation that Attorney Teasdale be required to pay the 
costs of this proceeding, which total $1,446.51 as of the 
Statement of Costs filed in April 2005. 
¶18 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Clay F. Teasdale to 
practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of this 
order. 
¶19 It IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Attorney Teasdale shall pay full restitution to 
                                                 
6 As we held in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Gilbert, 2002 WI 102, ¶11, 255 Wis. 2d 311, 647 N.W.2d 845, in 
such circumstances the clients should be reimbursed first.  
No. 
2005AP203-D   
 
9 
 
J.W., A.C., and K.R., and shall reimburse the Wisconsin Lawyers' 
Fund for Client Security, as set forth herein. 
¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Attorney Teasdale shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this disciplinary proceeding. 
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Teasdale comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a 
person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
revoked. 
No. 
2005AP203-D   
 
 
 
1