Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. David R. Nott

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2003 WI 17 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
02-2001-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against David R. Nott, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
Complainant, 
 
v. 
David R. Nott,  
 
Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST NOTT 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
March 18, 2003   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2003 WI 17 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  02-2001-D  
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against David R. Nott, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
David R. Nott,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAR 18, 2003 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the referee's recommendation 
that Attorney David R. Nott's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin 
be 
suspended 
for 
nine 
months 
for 
professional 
misconduct.  His misconduct consists of neglecting client 
matters, refusing to return unearned fees, and failing to 
cooperate 
with 
the 
Office 
of 
Lawyer 
Regulation's 
(OLR) 
investigation into grievances filed by clients.  
¶2 
We determine that the seriousness of Attorney Nott's 
professional misconduct warrants a suspension of his license to 
No. 
02-2001-D   
 
2 
 
practice law for nine months.  We also find that Attorney Nott 
should make restitution to the Client Security Fund (CSF) and 
one client and that he be required to pay the costs of this 
proceeding.  
¶3 
Attorney 
Nott 
was 
admitted 
to 
practice 
law 
in 
Wisconsin in 1989 and practiced in Rock County.  In 1999 
Attorney Nott received a consensual private reprimand for 
misconduct consisting of failing to timely pursue a client's 
case and failing to inform the client of the result and 
dismissal of his case.  On June 5, 2000, Attorney Nott's 
Wisconsin law license was suspended due to noncompliance with 
Continuing Legal Education (CLE) requirements.  On August 27, 
2001, this court temporarily suspended Attorney Nott's license 
for willful failure to cooperate with the OLR grievance 
investigations.  
¶4 
The complaint filed by the OLR on August 1, 2002, 
alleged misconduct with respect to three of Attorney Nott's 
former clients.  The first client retained Attorney Nott to 
represent her in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding in October of 
1999.  Attorney Nott told the client he would not commence the 
bankruptcy until his $925 fee had been paid in full.  The client 
made six payments totaling $9251 by May 5, 2000, and believed 
Attorney Nott would then promptly start a bankruptcy proceeding 
                                                 
1 The OLR's complaint and the referee's report state that 
the client paid Attorney Nott $975.  Materials filed with the 
court by the OLR after the issuance of the referee's report 
indicate that the client paid Attorney Nott $925 rather than 
$975. 
No. 
02-2001-D   
 
3 
 
on her behalf.  In January of 2000 Attorney Nott sent the client 
a letter saying he was moving his law practice to Loves Park, 
Illinois, but would continue to represent her in the bankruptcy 
case.  This was the last communication the client received from 
Attorney Nott and he never filed a bankruptcy action on her 
behalf.   
¶5 
Attorney Nott failed to notify the client of the June 
5, 2000, administrative suspension of his law license.  The 
client wrote Attorney Nott letters and left messages on his 
answering machine but received no response.  The client filed a 
grievance against him in October 2000.  The OLR sent Attorney 
Nott three letters asking for his written response to the 
client's grievance but he failed to respond. 
¶6 
The client applied for reimbursement of her bankruptcy 
retainer through the CSF. She was paid $575 by the CSF, which 
now has a claim against Attorney Nott in that amount.  The 
client was unable to obtain reimbursement for the remaining $350 
she paid Attorney Nott because she could not provide the CSF 
written receipts for those payments.   
¶7 
The second claim of misconduct alleged in the OLR's 
complaint involved Attorney Nott's representation of a client 
who 
retained 
Attorney 
Nott 
to 
file 
an 
action 
in 
a 
landlord/tenant case involving a security deposit that had not 
been returned to the client.  On September 3, 1999, the second 
client paid Attorney Nott $474 to file the action.  The client 
called Attorney Nott several times after paying the retainer 
inquiring as to the status of the case.  Each time Attorney Nott 
No. 
02-2001-D   
 
4 
 
told the client he was waiting for a court date.  Attorney Nott 
never filed an action on the client's behalf.  After Attorney 
Nott failed to respond to the client's messages, she filed a 
grievance against him.  The OLR sent Attorney Nott several 
letters asking for a written response to the grievance but he 
failed to respond.  The client was reimbursed $474 from the CSF, 
which now has a claim against Attorney Nott in that amount. 
¶8 
The third claim of misconduct alleged in the OLR's 
complaint involved a client who paid Attorney Nott a $2500 fee 
in August of 1999 to investigate an age discrimination charge.  
Attorney Nott reportedly researched the case and came to the 
conclusion that the client did not have a viable cause of 
action, but he failed to fully advise the client of his 
assessment of the case and the reasons for that conclusion.  
After Attorney Nott failed to return the client's phone calls 
the client filed a grievance with the OLR.   
¶9 
Attorney 
Eugene 
A. 
Gasiorkiewicz 
was 
appointed 
referee.  Attorney Nott failed to file an answer to the OLR's 
complaint and the OLR moved for default judgment.  Attorney Nott 
did not file any materials in opposition to the motion for 
default judgment and the referee granted such judgment on 
October 
30, 
2002. 
 
The 
referee 
issued 
his 
report 
and 
recommendation on November 7, 2002. 
¶10 The referee concluded that by failing to proceed with 
a bankruptcy action on behalf of the first client and by failing 
to file an action on behalf of the second client, Attorney Nott 
No. 
02-2001-D   
 
5 
 
violated SCR 20:1.3.2  The referee also concluded that by failing 
to notify the first and second clients of his June 5, 2000, CLE 
suspension and his inability to continue to represent them, 
Attorney Nott violated SCR 22.26(1)(a).3  The referee also 
concluded that by failing to return fees to the first and second 
clients when he provided no services for those fees and could no 
longer represent the clients because his law license had been 
suspended, Attorney Nott violated SCR 20:1.16(d).4   
¶11 The referee also found that by failing to respond to 
the 
OLR 
requests 
for 
written 
responses 
to 
the 
clients' 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:1.3 provides:  "Diligence.  A lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client."  
3 SCR 22.26(1)(a) provides: 
(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. 
4 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides: 
(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. 
02-2001-D   
 
6 
 
grievances, Attorney Nott violated SCR 22.03(2).5  The referee 
further found that by failing to respond to numerous phone calls 
from the second client inquiring about the status of her case, 
by failing to keep the third client fully advised about the 
status of his investigation into the viability of the client's 
claim, and by failing to respond to inquiries from the third 
client, Attorney Nott violated SCR 20:1.4(a).6  Finally, the 
referee concluded that by misrepresenting to the second client 
that he was waiting for a court date when in fact he had never 
filed a court action on the client's behalf, Attorney Nott 
violated SCR 20:8.4(c).7   
                                                 
5 SCR 22.03(2) provides: 
(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 SCR 20:1.4(a) provides:  "(a) A lawyer shall keep a client 
reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly 
comply with reasonable requests for information." 
7 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides: "It is professional misconduct for 
a lawyer to: (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
 
No. 
02-2001-D   
 
7 
 
¶12 The referee recommended that Attorney Nott's license 
to practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for nine months, that 
he be ordered to make restitution to the CSF in the amount of 
$1049, and that he be ordered to pay the costs of the 
proceeding. 
¶13 On January 15, 2003, this court issued an order to 
show cause why Attorney Nott should not also be required to 
reimburse the first client for the monies she had paid to 
Attorney Nott for which she had not been reimbursed by the CSF.  
Attorney Nott did not respond to the order to show cause.  The 
OLR filed a response saying it had contacted the first client 
and that she confirmed that Attorney Nott still owed her $350.  
The OLR said it believed it would be appropriate for Attorney 
Nott to be required to make restitution to the first client in 
the amount of $350, as well as making reimbursement to the 
Client Security Fund.  We find that it is appropriate for 
Attorney Nott to make restitution of $350 to the first client.  
¶14 We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law 
set forth in the referee's report and recommendation.  Attorney 
Nott's misconduct with respect to his handling of the three 
client matters and his failure to cooperate with the OLR's 
investigation are serious failings warranting a suspension of 
his license.  A nine-month suspension of his license to practice 
law is appropriate discipline for his professional misconduct.   
¶15 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney David R. 
Nott to practice law in Wisconsin remains suspended for a period 
of nine additional months, effective the date of this order.  
No. 
02-2001-D   
 
8 
 
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney David R. Nott 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended. 
¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney David R. Nott 
refund, within 60 days of the date of this order, $350 paid by 
the first client for her representation in a bankruptcy matter 
and that he also make restitution to the CSF in the amount of 
$1049.  If these refunds are not made within the specified time, 
the license of Attorney David R. Nott to practice law in 
Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of the 
court.  
¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Attorney David R. Nott 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 his inability to pay the costs within that time, the 
license of Attorney David R. Nott to practice law in Wisconsin 
shall remain suspended until further order of the court.  
¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution to the 
first client and to the CSF is to be paid prior to paying costs 
to the Office of Lawyer Regulation.  
No. 
02-2001-D   
 
 
 
1