Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Stacy Michelle Rios

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2005 WI 22 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
04-1665-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Stacy Michelle Rios, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Stacy Michelle Rios,  
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST RIOS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
March 8, 2005   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2005 WI 22 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This order is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The 
final version will appear in the 
bound volume of the official 
reports.   
 
 
 
No.  04-1665-D 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Stacy Michelle Rios, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Stacy Michelle Rios,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAR 8, 2005 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Court entered the following order on this date: 
 
We review the findings of fact, conclusions of law and 
recommendations of Referee John A. Fiorenza.  Attorney Stacy M. 
Rios was found to have engaged in unprofessional conduct in the 
course of her practice of law in violation of the Rules of 
Professional Conduct. The referee's recommendation was for a 60-
day suspension of Attorney Rios’ license to practice law, after 
all current suspensions have been lifted, and that Attorney Rios 
be required to pay the costs of the proceeding.   
 
We agree that the seriousness of Attorney Rios's misconduct 
warrants suspension of her license to practice law and we 
approve 
the 
referee’s 
findings, 
conclusions, 
and 
recommendations. 
 
No. 04-1665-D 
2 
Attorney Rios was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin on 
June 19, 1995.  Her license to practice law in Wisconsin is 
presently under suspension.  On October 31, 2001 her license was  
administratively suspended for non-payment of State Bar dues.  
On June 3, 2002 her license was suspended for non-compliance 
with continuing legal education requirements.   
 
 
The matter before the court involves Attorney Rios’ 
representation 
of 
T.S., 
in 
connection 
with 
a 
criminal 
proceeding.  T.S. was convicted in federal court in 1995 and 
sentenced to a lengthy term of incarceration.  He filed an 
appeal that was unsuccessful.  The court subsequently appointed 
Attorney Rios to pursue T.S.’s second appeal.  That appeal was 
denied on August 25, 1995. 
 
 
In the Spring of 2000, T.S. privately retained Attorney 
Rios to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus on his behalf, 
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.  The deadline for filing the 
motion was August 25, 2000.  Attorney Rios received $2,000 from 
T.S.’s family to pursue this matter.  T.S. never received a fee 
agreement from Attorney Rios and Attorney Rios failed to file 
the motion on T.S.’s behalf by the deadline.  T.S. attempted to 
contact Attorney Rios after the deadline passed, but Attorney 
Rios refused to accept T.S.’s telephone calls.  T.S.’s mother 
was also unsuccessful in her attempts to communicate with 
Attorney Rios.  On September 11, 2000, T.S.’s mother confirmed 
with the court that no motion had been filed on T.S.’s behalf.   
 
 
Attorney Rios apparently advised the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation (OLR) that her “strategy” was to purposely not file 
the motion on the deadline and that she intended to assist T.S. 
in filing a pro se motion claiming lawyer negligence.  T.S., 
however, was not advised of this strategy prior to the deadline 
for filing the petition for writ of habeas corpus.  After the 
disciplinary investigation commenced, Attorney Rios did return 
the $2,000 retainer to T.S.’s family.  However, Attorney Rios 
failed to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation, and 
impeded efforts to communicate with her by failing to advise the 
OLR of a change in business address.  Attorney Rios eventually 
withdrew her answer to the Complaint; she does not contest  the 
allegations contained in the Complaint. 
 
 
The OLR alleged and the referee found that by failing to 
timely file a petition for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of 
T.S., Attorney Rios failed to represent a client with the legal 
No. 04-1665-D 
3 
knowledge, 
skill, 
thoroughness, 
and 
preparation 
reasonably 
necessary for representation, in violation of SCR 20:1.1.1   
 
 
The OLR alleged and the referee found that by failing to 
respond to letters and telephone calls from T.S. and his family, 
Attorney Rios failed to keep T.S. reasonably informed about the 
status of a matter and to promptly comply with reasonable 
requests for information in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a).2 
 
 
The OLR alleged and the referee found that by failing to 
explain her purportedly legal strategy to T.S. prior to the 
filing deadline, Attorney Rios failed to explain a matter to the 
extent reasonably necessary to permit T.S. to make an informed 
decision regarding the representation, in violation of SCR 
20:1.4(b).3 
 
 
The OLR alleged and the referee found that by failing to 
return T.S.’s file after he requested it, Attorney Rios failed 
to timely surrender papers and property to which T.S. was 
entitled upon termination of representation, in violation of SCR 
20:1.16(d).4 
 
 
The OLR alleged and the referee found that by failing to 
respond to telephone calls and other attempts at contact by the 
OLR’s District Committee investigators, Attorney Rios failed to 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.1 provides: “A lawyer shall provide competent 
representation to a client.  Competent representation requires 
the 
legal 
knowledge, 
skill, 
thoroughness 
and 
preparation 
reasonably necessary for the representation.” 
 
2 SCR 20:1.4(a) provides: “A lawyer shall keep a client 
reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly 
comply with reasonable requests for information.” 
 
3 SCR 20:1.4(b) provides:  “A lawyer shall explain a matter 
to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make 
informed decisions regarding the representation.” 
 
4 
SCR 
20:1.16(d) 
provides: 
 
“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. 04-1665-D 
4 
provide relevant information in the course of the investigation 
in violation of SCR 21.15(4)5, 22.03(2)6, 22.03(6)7 and 22.04(1)8, 
constituting misconduct under SCR 20:8.4(f).9 
 
The referee recommended that Attorney Rios’ license be 
suspended for a period of 60 days, effective after all current 
suspensions have been lifted, and that she be required to pay 
the costs of the disciplinary proceeding.   
 
We agree that the seriousness of Attorney Rios's misconduct 
warrants suspension of her license to practice law, and we 
approve 
the 
findings, 
conclusions, 
and 
recommendations.  
Therefore, 
 
 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Stacy M. Rios to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days 
[effective the date all other suspensions are lifted]; 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if she has not already done so, 
Attorney Stacy M. Rios comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 
                                                 
5 SCR 21.15(4) provides:  “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 willful failure to cooperate with the office of 
lawyer 
regulation 
constitutes 
violation 
of 
the 
rules 
of 
professional conduct for attorneys.” 
 
6 SCR 22.03(2) provides in relevant part: “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.” 
 
7 
SCR 
22.03(6) 
provides: 
 
“In 
the 
course 
of 
the 
investigation, the respondent's willful 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.” 
 
8 SCR 22.04(1) provides in relevant part: “A respondent has 
the duty to cooperate specified in SCR 21.15 (4) and 22.03 (2) 
in respect to the district committee.” 
 
9 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides:  It is misconduct for a lawyer to: 
“violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme court order or 
supreme court decision regulating the conduct of lawyers.” 
No. 04-1665-D 
5 
concerning the duties of a person whose license to practice law 
in Wisconsin has been suspended; 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of 
this order Attorney Stacy M. Rios pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation all the costs of this proceeding, provided that if 
such costs are not paid within the time specified and absent a 
showing to the court of her inability to pay the costs within 
that time, the license of Stacy M. Rios to practice law in 
Wisconsin shall be suspended until further order of this court. 
 
 
 
 
No. 04-1665-D 
6