Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Mark G. Pierquet

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2005 WI 147 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2004AP2998-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Mark G. Pierquet, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Mark G. Pierquet, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PIERQUET 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 25, 2005   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2005 WI 147
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2004AP2998-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Mark G. Pierquet, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Mark G. Pierquet, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
OCT 25, 2005 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review a report and recommendation 
filed 
by 
referee 
Rose 
Marie 
Baron 
on 
April 
11, 
2005, 
incorporating 
Attorney 
Pierquet's 
no 
contest 
plea 
and 
stipulations executed by the parties, recommending that Attorney 
Mark G. Pierquet receive a public reprimand for professional 
misconduct and that the court impose certain conditions upon 
Attorney Pierquet's practice of law. 
No. 
2004AP2998-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
Having independently reviewed the record, we accept 
the 
referee's 
factual 
findings 
and 
recommendation 
upon 
stipulations.  We agree that Attorney Pierquet's conduct 
violated the rules of professional conduct and we further agree 
that a public reprimand and the imposition of conditions is the 
appropriate discipline for Attorney Pierquet's misconduct.  We 
also conclude that Attorney Pierquet should be required to pay 
the costs of the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) proceeding, 
which total $810.72 as of April 28, 2005.   
¶3 
Attorney Pierquet was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in September 2001.  He has not previously been 
disciplined.   
¶4 
As 
the 
OLR 
complaint 
alleged 
and 
the 
referee 
subsequently found, the client in this matter, R.G., allegedly 
sustained injuries while undergoing treatment at a doctor's 
office in January 2000.  In 2001 an attorney in Menasha referred 
R.G. to Attorney Pierquet and a colleague who would serve as his 
co-counsel. 
¶5 
Attorney Pierquet and his colleague met with R.G. and 
explained that they would jointly represent R.G.  Attorney 
Pierquet would investigate and plead the case; his colleague was 
responsible for the trial. 
¶6 
R.G. agreed to retain Attorney Pierquet and his 
colleague on a contingent fee basis.  Attorney Pierquet asserts 
that he reduced the contingent fee to writing, but was unable to 
produce a copy.  R.G. does not recall signing a contingent fee 
No. 
2004AP2998-D   
 
3 
 
agreement, but does recall that he asked Attorney Pierquet for a 
copy and did not receive one. 
¶7 
On July 9, 2002, Attorney Pierquet filed a complaint 
on behalf of R.G. in the Outagamie County Circuit Court.  On 
January 9, 2003, opposing counsel wrote Attorney Pierquet, 
seeking dates to depose R.G.'s expert witnesses.  Attorney 
Pierquet failed to respond to that letter. 
¶8 
On March 10, 2003, opposing counsel spoke with 
Attorney Pierquet and Pierquet agreed to provide the expert 
witnesses for depositions.  On March 27, 2003, opposing counsel 
wrote Attorney Pierquet, again seeking deposition dates for the 
expert witnesses, and also seeking a stipulation to modify the 
scheduling order.  Attorney Pierquet failed to respond to that 
letter. 
¶9 
Opposing 
counsel 
called 
Attorney 
Pierquet 
on 
April 7th, April 11th, and April 15, 2003, to inquire about the 
stipulation for modifying the scheduling order.  Attorney 
Pierquet failed to return these calls. 
¶10 On April 16, 2003, opposing counsel wrote to Attorney 
Pierquet requesting a response and informing Attorney Pierquet 
that failure to respond would result in a motion to the court.  
Attorney Pierquet did not respond.  
¶11 On May 13, 2003, opposing counsel filed a motion to 
dismiss R.G.'s complaint, or in the alternative to modify the 
scheduling order and compel discovery.  The circuit court heard 
the motion on July 2, 2003.  The court then limited R.G.'s 
witnesses, ordered R.G. to provide opposing counsel the theory 
No. 
2004AP2998-D   
 
4 
 
of liability by July 14, 2003, and imposed costs of $400 on R.G. 
to compensate opposing counsel for the costs of bringing the 
motion. 
¶12 On July 2, 2003, opposing counsel spoke with Attorney 
Pierquet about dismissing the lawsuit.  On July 9, 2003, 
opposing counsel sent Attorney Pierquet a stipulation and order 
for dismissal. 
¶13 Attorney Pierquet failed to provide opposing counsel 
the theory of liability by July 14, 2003, as ordered by the 
court. 
¶14 On August 8, 2003, without consulting his client, 
Attorney Pierquet signed a stipulation to dismiss R.G.'s case 
with 
prejudice. 
 
On 
August 
27, 
2003, 
based 
upon 
this 
stipulation, the circuit court dismissed the lawsuit.  Attorney 
Pierquet did not inform either R.G. or his own colleague that he 
had stipulated to dismissal of the case. 
¶15 In 
September 
2003 
Attorney 
Pierquet's 
colleague 
received notice of a trial date for R.G.'s case.  He informed 
Attorney Pierquet that he required more time to prepare for 
trial.  Attorney Pierquet then informed his colleague that due 
to the lack of notice, the court had removed the case from the 
calendar and would reschedule it later.  This information was 
false, as Attorney Pierquet knew. 
¶16 On or about September 9, 2003, R.G. called Attorney 
Pierquet to ask what he should wear to court.  Attorney Pierquet 
did not inform R.G. that he had stipulated to dismissal, and 
No. 
2004AP2998-D   
 
5 
 
instead told R.G. that the case was progressing smoothly toward 
conclusion. 
¶17 On or about October 8, 2003, R.G. contacted Attorney 
Pierquet, stating that he had learned that his case had been 
dismissed.  He sought an explanation from Attorney Pierquet.  
Attorney Pierquet falsely stated to R.G. that he had not signed 
a stipulation dismissing the case. 
¶18 At this point Attorney Pierquet's colleague conducted 
a case search and confirmed that a stipulation for dismissal had 
been entered in R.G.'s case.  He confronted Attorney Pierquet, 
who initially gave a noncommittal response, but subsequently 
admitted signing the stipulation. 
¶19 The disciplinary complaint filed against Attorney 
Pierquet alleged five counts of misconduct.  Eventually, 
Attorney Pierquet agreed to plead no contest to these five 
counts.  In March 2005 the parties executed a stipulation and no 
contest plea agreeing, with minor clarifications, that the 
factual allegations set forth in the complaint were accurate.  
The referee thus concluded that there was an adequate factual 
basis in the record to show that Attorney Pierquet had committed 
misconduct in respect to each of the five allegations set forth 
by the OLR.  Subsequently, the parties entered a second 
stipulation regarding discipline. 
No. 
2004AP2998-D   
 
6 
 
¶20 The stipulation stated, and the referee concluded that 
by failing to reduce his contingent fee agreement with R.G. to 
writing, Attorney Pierquet violated SCR 20:1.5(c).1 
¶21 In addition, the parties stipulated and the referee 
concluded that by failing to properly prosecute R.G.'s lawsuit, 
by failing to respond to discovery requests, and by failing to 
comply with a court-ordered deadline, Attorney Pierquet failed 
to provide competent representation in violation of SCR 20:1.1,2 
and also failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in representing a client in violation of SCR 20:1.3.3 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.5(c) provides:  
A fee may be contingent on the outcome of the 
matter for which the service is rendered, except in a 
matter in which a contingent fee is prohibited by 
paragraph (d) or other law.  A contingent fee 
agreement shall be in writing and shall state the 
method by which the fee is to be determined, including 
the percentage or percentages that shall accrue to the 
lawyer in the event of settlement, trial or appeal, 
litigation and other expenses to be deducted from the 
recovery, and whether such expenses are to be deducted 
before or after the contingent fee is calculated.  
Upon conclusion of a contingent fee matter, the lawyer 
shall provide the client with a written statement 
stating the outcome of the matter and if there is a 
recovery, showing the remittance to the client and the 
method of its determination. 
2 SCR 20:1.1 provides that "[a] lawyer shall provide 
competent representation to a client.  Competent representation 
requires 
the 
legal 
knowledge, 
skill, 
thoroughness 
and 
preparation reasonably necessary for the representation." 
3 SCR 20:1.3 provides that "[a] lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
No. 
2004AP2998-D   
 
7 
 
¶22 In addition, by stipulating to the dismissal of R.G.'s 
lawsuit with prejudice without consulting or informing his 
client, the parties stipulated and the referee concluded that 
Attorney Pierquet failed to abide by a client's decisions 
concerning the objectives of a 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).4 
¶23 The 
stipulation 
provided 
and 
the 
referee 
also 
concluded that by stating to R.G. that the case was progressing, 
and by denying that he had signed a stipulation for dismissal 
when in fact he had signed a stipulation for dismissal and the 
case had been dismissed, Attorney Pierquet engaged in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation in 
violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).5  
                                                 
4 SCR 20:1.2(a) provides:  Scope of representation. 
A lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions 
concerning the objectives of representation, subject 
to paragraphs (c), (d) and (e), 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. 
5 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
No. 
2004AP2998-D   
 
8 
 
¶24 Finally, 
the parties 
stipulated and 
the referee 
concluded that by failing to inform his co-counsel that he had 
dismissed the case and by misleading co-counsel into believing 
the case was pending and that the trial would be rescheduled, 
Attorney Pierquet engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit, 
or 
misrepresentation 
in 
violation 
of 
SCR 
20:8.4(c).  
 
¶25 The parties eventually reached a second stipulation 
providing 
that 
Attorney 
Pierquet 
would 
receive 
a 
public 
reprimand for his misconduct and that certain conditions would 
be 
imposed 
on 
Attorney 
Pierquet's 
practice 
of 
law.  
Specifically, the parties stipulated that: 
For a period of two years following the date 
of the Supreme Court's final order, Pierquet 
shall continue medical treatment, and shall 
comply with all treatment recommendations; 
and 
Six months after the date of the Supreme 
Court's final order, and every six months 
thereafter until two years after the Court's 
order, Pierquet shall provide full medical 
treatment records to OLR. 
¶26 The stipulation sets forth the medical reasons for 
these conditions and the referee accepted the stipulation as 
part of her recommendation regarding discipline.  Based on our 
review of the record, we agree that a public reprimand with the 
imposition of the conditions described herein is appropriate in 
this matter.  We further conclude that Attorney Pierquet should 
be required to pay the costs of this proceeding. 
¶27 IT IS ORDERED that Attorney Mark G. Pierquet is 
publicly reprimanded for professional misconduct. 
No. 
2004AP2998-D   
 
9 
 
¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following conditions 
are imposed upon Attorney Pierquet's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin: 
For a period of two years following the date 
of 
the 
Supreme 
Court's 
final 
order, 
[Attorney] Pierquet shall continue medical 
treatment, 
and 
shall 
comply 
with 
all 
treatment recommendations; and 
Six months after the date of the Supreme 
Court's final order, and every six months 
thereafter until two years after the Court's 
order, [Attorney] Pierquet shall provide 
full medical treatment records to [the] OLR. 
¶29 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Attorney Mark G. Pierquet 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 an inability to pay the costs within that time, 
the license of Attorney Mark G. Pierquet to practice law in 
Wisconsin shall be suspended until further order of the court. 
No. 
2004AP2998-D   
 
 
 
1