Title: Robert J. Urban v.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1996AP002664-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: March 12, 1998

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
96-2664-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against 
Robert J. Urban, 
Attorney at Law. 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST URBAN 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
March 12, 1998 
Submitted on Briefs: 
February 20, 1998 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating:  
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
For the Board of Attorney’s Professional 
Responsibility the cause was submitted on the briefs of Patricia 
D. Jursik, Board Counsel and Jursik & Jursik, Cudahy. 
 
 
For Robert J. Urban, the cause was submitted on 
the brief of Robert Silverstein and Law Office of Robert 
Silverstein, Milwaukee. 
 
No. 96-2664-D 
 
1 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear in 
the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No. 96-2664-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against ROBERT J. URBAN, Attorney at Law. 
FILED 
 
MAR 12, 1998 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney’s 
license 
suspended and condition imposed.  
¶1 
PER CURIAM   This is an appeal by the Board of 
Attorneys Professional Responsibility (Board) from the referee’s 
disciplinary recommendation of a 90-day license suspension for 
Attorney Urban’s failure to act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness in handling four probate estates, his numerous 
misrepresentations to the probate court of the causes for his 
continued failure to complete one of them timely, and his 
failure to cooperate with the Board during its investigation of 
his conduct. The Board argued that the seriousness of that 
misconduct, in light of prior misconduct for which Attorney 
Urban has been disciplined, warrants the suspension of his 
license to practice law for six months. Attorney Urban took the 
position that the discipline recommended by the referee is 
appropriate. Neither the Board nor Attorney Urban appealed from 
the referee’s additional recommendation that as a condition on 
No. 96-2664-D 
 
2 
his continued practice he be required to file periodically with 
the Board for two years a list of probate matters he has pending 
in any court, with pertinent information concerning those 
matters.  
¶2 
We determine that Attorney Urban’s misconduct in his 
handling of these four estates, particularly, his repeated 
misrepresentations to the court concerning his work in one of 
them, warrants a six-month suspension of his license to practice 
law. The fact that he has been disciplined twice for misconduct 
similar to that considered in this proceeding, including his 
failure to respond to the Board during its investigations, 
suggests that Attorney Urban fails to appreciate either his 
professional duties and responsibilities in representing clients 
and cooperating with the court’s disciplinary system or the need 
to fulfill those duties and requirements. Under our rules, in 
order for him to have his license reinstated following that 
suspension, Attorney Urban will be required to establish that he 
understands the standards of professional conduct imposed on 
attorneys and to demonstrate that he will comply with those 
standards.  
¶3 
Attorney Urban was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1958 and practices in Milwaukee. He has been 
disciplined twice for misconduct. In 1984, the court publicly 
reprimanded him for lack of diligence in the probate of an 
estate and failure 
to 
respond to 
the Board 
during its 
investigation. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Urban, 119 Wis. 
2d 889, 350 N.W.2d 138. In 1987, the Board privately reprimanded 
No. 96-2664-D 
 
3 
him, with his consent, for failure to forward files to a client 
despite numerous requests for them, failure to notify the client 
of the receipt of funds belonging to the client, and failure to 
respond promptly to the Board’s inquiries into the matter.  
¶4 
In the instant proceeding, the parties stipulated to 
the following facts, and the referee, Attorney Kathleen Callan 
Brady, made corresponding findings concerning Attorney Urban’s 
conduct in the probate of four estates and during the Board’s 
investigation of that conduct. In the first of the four probate 
matters, Attorney Urban was appointed personal representative 
February 1, 1988. He did not file the estate’s inventory within 
the six-month statutory period and did not request an extension 
of time to do so. After the probate court had issued five orders 
to show cause, he filed the inventory six months late. He made a 
tax tender of $13,000 to the Wisconsin Department of Revenue in 
December, 1988 and by the end of 1989 had distributed about 90 
percent of the estate’s assets, which totaled over $296,000.  
¶5 
After 
those 
distributions 
were 
made, 
the 
only 
remaining assets in the estate were three mutual funds with 
balances totaling $10,000 and a $2,600 bank account. From July, 
1989 to November, 1994, a bank trust officer made 12 requests on 
behalf of one of the heirs for the distribution of the remaining 
assets and for the closing of the estate. The trust officer then 
filed a grievance with the Board. Attorney Urban did not contact 
the transfer agents to arrange the transfer of the mutual fund 
balances and did not transfer those funds until early 1996.  
No. 96-2664-D 
 
4 
¶6 
The hearing on the final account in the estate was 
held July 13, 1990, 29 months after the probate commenced. 
However, because Attorney Urban did not file the final judgment 
or closing certificate from the Wisconsin Department of Revenue, 
the estate could not be closed. In addition, Attorney Urban had 
been informed of the decedent’s failure to file income tax 
returns for 1982 to 1987, and he was required to reconstruct 
returns for those six years. Yet, he did not contact either the 
Internal Revenue Service or the Wisconsin Department of Revenue 
to obtain their records concerning the decedent’s income for 
those years. He did not file the income tax returns for 1984 to 
1987 until July, 1994, and he filed the reconstructed returns 
for 1982 and 1983 in February, 1995.  
¶7 
Pursuant to statute, this estate should have been 
closed in August, 1989. From then until May 4, 1995, when final 
judgment was entered, the probate court had entered 24 orders to 
show cause why the estate had not been closed. The estate 
remained open for more than seven and one-half years, and the 
heirs did not receive the balance of its assets for six years.  
¶8 
Following receipt of the grievance, the Board asked 
Attorney Urban for a response and for his file in the matter. 
Attorney Urban did not respond within the 20 days specified, nor 
did he respond to the Board’s second request. Three days after 
the date specified for response, he telephoned the Board and 
requested an additional 10 days to respond, and the Board gave 
him one week to do so. At the end of that week, Attorney Urban 
delivered his response in person. Thereafter, the Board sought 
No. 96-2664-D 
 
5 
additional information concerning the status of the estate, but 
Attorney Urban did not respond timely and did not respond at all 
to the Board’s request for information concerning the status of 
the three mutual funds remaining in the estate. When he appeared 
for an investigative meeting, he did not bring the complete file 
with him, as he was required to do, and did not respond to the 
Board’s request to produce documentation establishing that the 
delay in concluding the estate was in part the result of 
problems with the tax department.  
¶9 
The referee concluded that Attorney Urban failed to 
act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing 
this estate, in violation of SCR 20:1.3,1 by failing to probate 
it timely, respond timely to requests from the Department of 
Revenue, and promptly distribute estate assets, notwithstanding 
repeated requests from the heirs and their representatives. He 
also failed to cooperate with the Board’s investigation, in 
violation of SCR 22.07(2) and (3)2 and 21.03(4).3  
                     
1 SCR 20:1.3 provides: Diligence 
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in representing a client.   
2 SCR 22.07 provides, in pertinent part: Investigation.  
 . . .  
No. 96-2664-D 
 
6 
¶10 During its investigation of that estate matter, the 
Board discovered that Attorney Urban had failed to act timely in 
three other probate matters. In one of those, after the 
admission of the will and Attorney Urban’s appointment as 
personal representative on March 8, 1990, the court file showed 
no activity for the next seven months other than the withdrawal 
of an order appointing appraisers. When the inventory was not 
filed within the statutory six-month period, the court issued an 
order to show cause setting a December 13, 1990 hearing date. 
The matter was then adjourned to February 8, 1991, at which time 
                                                                  
(2) 
During 
the 
course 
of 
an 
investigation, 
the 
administrator or a committee may notify the respondent of the 
subject being investigated. The respondent shall fully and 
fairly disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to the 
alleged misconduct or medical incapacity within 20 days of being 
served by ordinary mail a request for response to a grievance. 
The administrator in his or her discretion may allow additional 
time 
to 
respond. 
Failure 
to 
provide 
information 
or 
misrepresentation 
in 
a 
disclosure 
is 
misconduct. 
The 
administrator or committee may make a further investigation 
before making a recommendation to the board.  
(3) 
The 
administrator 
or 
committee 
may 
compel 
the 
respondent to answer questions, furnish documents and present 
any information deemed relevant to the investigation. Failure of 
the respondent to answer questions, furnish documents or present 
relevant information is misconduct. The administrator or a 
committee may compel any other person to produce pertinent 
books, papers and documents under SCR 22.22.   
3 SCR 21.03 provides, in pertinent part: General principles. 
 . . .  
(4) Every attorney shall cooperate with the board and the 
administrator in the investigation, prosecution and disposition 
of grievances and complaints filed with or by the board or 
administrator.   
No. 96-2664-D 
 
7 
Attorney Urban filed the inventory listing the estate’s value of 
just over $1,000,000, consisting of $90,000 of real estate, a 
brokerage account of $867,000, two savings accounts totaling 
$40,000, and jewelry and furniture valued at approximately 
$5,000. Attorney Urban’s file disclosed that he had the 
necessary documentation to file the inventory by May of 1990, 
but he did not do so until nine months later, five months after 
the statutory deadline.  
¶11 On May 6, 1991, the register in probate informed 
Attorney Urban that the estate had been pending for over 14 
months without a final hearing and specified the items that had 
to be filed. When no extension to close the estate was 
requested, the probate court issued an order to show cause 
September 23, 1991. After some 15 subsequent adjournments of 
order to show cause proceedings, the estate remained open in 
mid-June, 1996. At that time, the $40,000 in the accounts had 
not been distributed, and anticipated tax refunds of some 
$30,000 remained outstanding as the result of Attorney Urban’s 
failure to file inheritance and estate tax returns. In addition, 
state and federal fiduciary income tax returns had not been 
filed 
because, 
according 
to 
Attorney 
Urban, 
the 
files 
inadvertently had been placed in a separate file and were not 
discovered until the summer of 1996. Attorney Urban filed the 
state inheritance tax return and the federal estate tax return 
in November, 1996, claiming in each of them a partial refund of 
the tax tenders he had made.  
No. 96-2664-D 
 
8 
¶12 Attorney 
Urban 
had 
distributed 
$966,000 
to 
the 
decedent’s sole heir in February, 1993 but did not file the 
heir’s receipt when the hearing was held on the final account 
the following month. Also, he had not filed any fiduciary tax 
returns and had not distributed all of the estate’s assets. 
Accordingly, the matter was continued.  
¶13 At numerous appearances before the probate court on 
orders to show cause why the estate had not been closed, 
Attorney Urban repeatedly misrepresented to several probate 
court judges that he was awaiting clearances from state and 
federal tax authorities and that there were disputes and an 
audit 
involving 
estate 
and 
inheritance 
tax 
refunds. 
He 
misrepresented that he was engaged in a problem with the 
Wisconsin Department of Revenue and was “fighting with them” for 
a closing certificate and for a refund. In fact, there was no 
tax audit nor were there tax disputes pending. When he made 
those misrepresentations, Attorney Urban knew he had not filed 
the returns claiming the refunds, had never requested refunds or 
closing certificates, and had not been in communication with the 
Department of Revenue about disputed tax issues.  
¶14 The referee concluded that Attorney Urban’s failure to 
act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing 
this estate violated SCR 20:1.3 and that his misrepresentations 
to the court were in violation of SCR 20:3.3(a)(1).4  
                     
4 SCR 20:3.3 provides, in pertinent part: Candor toward the 
tribunal 
(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: 
No. 96-2664-D 
 
9 
¶15 The referee concluded that Attorney Urban failed to 
act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing 
another estate, in violation of SCR 20:1.3, which he was 
retained to probate by the decedent’s wife and sole heir in May, 
1993. The gross value of the estate was approximately $27,000. 
One of the two commercial properties of which the estate 
consisted was in the process of being sold, and it was 
discovered that the wife did not have the right to convey the 
real estate without probate. On June 7, 1993, after a petition 
was filed for informal administration, the wife, who was 
personal representative, was able to close the sale of the 
commercial property. 
¶16 There was no further activity in the estate for over 
six months, and the court issued an order to show cause why the 
inventory had not been filed. Attorney Urban filed the inventory 
on the return date of that order, but nothing more was done in 
the estate for the next six months. The register in probate 
notified Attorney Urban that the estate had been pending for 
over 14 months and specified the items that needed to be filed. 
When Attorney Urban did not file those documents, the court 
issued an order to show cause November 29, 1994 why the estate 
had not been closed. When Attorney Urban failed to close the 
estate within 18 months and did not request an extension of time 
to do so, the court ordered him to appear on five successive 
                                                                  
(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal; 
No. 96-2664-D 
 
10
dates between January, 1995 and May, 1996. As of June 19, 1996, 
he had not filed the fiduciary tax returns in the estate.  
¶17 In the last of the four probate matters, Attorney 
Urban was retained in November, 1994 to probate an estate that 
consisted of a one-half interest in a parcel of real estate and 
a $50 savings bond. The gross value of the estate was just over 
$30,000. The real estate was in the process of being sold when 
the surviving spouse discovered that it had not been transferred 
to her in joint tenancy. After an application for informal 
administration was filed, the spouse was able to close the sale 
of the property. 
¶18 There was no further activity in that estate for the 
next seven months, and the court issued an order to show cause 
why the inventory had not been filed. When the inventory was not 
filed by the return date of that order and Attorney Urban did 
not obtain an extension of time to file it, the court adjourned 
the order to show cause, and Attorney Urban filed the inventory 
six days after the return date of that order.  
¶19 In February, 1996, the register in probate informed 
Attorney Urban that the estate had been pending for over 14 
months and specified the documents that needed to be filed. Even 
though the estate remained open beyond 18 months from the date 
of filing of the application for informal administration, 
Attorney Urban never requested an extension of time. The estate 
finally was closed on August 28, 1996.  
¶20 The referee concluded that Attorney Urban failed to 
act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing 
No. 96-2664-D 
 
11
this estate by failing to probate it timely and timely prepare 
its tax returns, in violation of SCR 20:1.3.  
¶21 During its investigation into his conduct in those 
matters, Attorney Urban did not respond to the Board’s initial 
letter asking for a report of the current status of each of them 
and for an estimate of when each would be closed. He did not 
respond 
to 
the 
Board’s 
second 
letter 
seeking 
the 
same 
information within the time required. When he did not return the 
admission of service of the notice to attend an investigative 
meeting, the Board had him served by a process server. The 
referee concluded that Attorney Urban failed to cooperate with 
the Board’s investigation into these matters, in violation of 
SCR 22.07(2) and (3) and 21.03(4).  
¶22 In recommending a 90-day license suspension and the 
imposition 
of 
a 
reporting 
condition 
on 
Attorney 
Urban’s 
continued practice of law following reinstatement, the referee 
rejected Attorney Urban’s contention that in the estate in which 
he made repeated misrepresentations to the probate court 
concerning tax problems, he was merely attempting to protect the 
heir, who at the time was anticipating a divorce. The referee 
noted Attorney Urban’s testimony that he became aware of the 
heir’s marital problems only after he had made the initial 
$966,000 distribution to her. Consequently, for over the 
following three years he never advised the probate court of that 
asserted concern.  
¶23 The referee also rejected the Board’s position that a 
six-month license suspension should be recommended in order 
No. 96-2664-D 
 
12
that, as a condition of reinstatement of his license, Attorney 
Urban be required to show that he has a proper understanding of 
and attitude toward the standards imposed on lawyers and that he 
will act in conformity with them. The referee asserted that, as 
he 
had 
stipulated 
to 
his 
violations 
of 
the 
pertinent 
disciplinary 
rules 
and 
took 
full 
responsibility 
for 
his 
misconduct, Attorney Urban has shown that he understands those 
standards. The referee also noted that there was no evidence of 
theft or conversion of estate assets or that Attorney Urban 
acted out of a selfish motive. Further, although initially 
failing to cooperate with the Board in its investigation, he 
eventually cooperated after he retained counsel in the matter.  
¶24 In this appeal, the Board contended that the 90-day 
suspension recommended by the referee does not adequately 
measure 
the 
seriousness 
of 
Attorney 
Urban’s 
multiple 
misrepresentations to the probate court concerning the delay in 
closing one of the estates. Those misrepresentations, it argued, 
together with Attorney Urban’s prior misconduct and the other 
violations of the professional conduct rules established in this 
proceeding, call for a six-month license suspension, in addition 
to the reporting requirement recommended by the referee. We 
agree.  
¶25 Between December 13, 1990 and February 8, 1996, 
Attorney Urban appeared before a number of judges in Milwaukee 
county probate court on orders to show cause why an estate had 
not been completed. On 11 occasions over that period of time, he 
misrepresented to the court that there were ongoing disputes 
No. 96-2664-D 
 
13
with the federal and state tax authorities and that he was 
“fighting” with the state revenue department to obtain funds and 
a closing certificate. On one occasion, he told the court that 
there was a tax audit pending, despite the fact that he never 
had been in communication with the Department of Revenue.  
¶26 Those 
misrepresentations, 
made 
to 
prevent 
the 
disclosure of Attorney Urban’s failure to meet his professional 
responsibilities in concluding the probate of the estate, are 
egregious. 
Moreover, 
their 
seriousness 
is 
exacerbated 
by 
Attorney Urban’s attempt to explain them as his effort to assist 
his client in retaining the assets remaining to be distributed. 
Even if that claim were sustainable, it would constitute his 
abuse of the court system to benefit a client.  
¶27 In light of the seriousness of his misconduct in these 
four probate matters, the two reprimands imposed on him for 
prior misconduct, some of which is the same as established in 
the instant proceeding, and his continued refusal to meet his 
responsibility 
to 
cooperate 
with 
the 
Board, 
a 
six-month 
suspension of Attorney Urban’s license to practice law is the 
appropriate discipline to impose. Pursuant to SCR 22.28(3), that 
suspension will require Attorney Urban to obtain an order of 
this court reinstating his license, after establishing that he 
has met the requirements for reinstatement set forth in that 
rule. In addition to the license suspension, we impose the 
reporting condition recommended by the referee.  
No. 96-2664-D 
 
14
¶28 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Robert J. Urban to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of six 
months, commencing April 27, 1998.   
¶29 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that for a period of two years 
following reinstatement of his license, Robert J. Urban shall 
comply with the reporting requirement recommended by the referee 
in this proceeding.  
¶30 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Robert J. Urban pay to the Board of Attorneys 
Professional Responsibility 
the costs 
of this 
proceeding, 
provided that 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 Robert J. Urban 
to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until 
further order of the court.  
¶31 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Robert J. Urban comply with 
the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person 
whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended.  
 
 
 
1