Title: Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility v. Nicholas C. Grapsas
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1998AP000571-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: December 3, 1999

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
98-0571-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Nicholas C. Grapsas, Attorney at  
Law. 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility,  
 
Complainant-Respondent, 
 
v. 
Nicholas C. Grapsas,  
 
Respondent-Appellant.  
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GRAPSAS 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
December 3, 1999 
Submitted on Briefs: 
      
Oral Argument: 
November 4, 1999 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
      
 
Dissented: 
      
 
Not Participating:       
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
For the respondent-appellant there were briefs 
and oral argument by Nicholas C. Grapsas, Madison. 
 
 
For the complainant-respondent there was a brief 
and oral argument by Paul W. Schwarzenbart for the Board of 
Attorneys Professional Responsibility, Madison. 
 
No. 
98-0571-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. 98-0571-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Nicholas C. Grapsas, Attorney at  
Law. 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional  
Responsibility,  
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Nicholas C. Grapsas,  
 
          Respondent-Appellant.  
FILED 
 
DEC 3, 1999 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.  
¶1 
PER CURIAM   Attorney Nicholas Grapsas appealed from 
the referee's conclusions that he engaged in professional 
misconduct in his representation of a client in an immigration 
matter and the recommendation that his license to practice law 
be suspended as discipline for that misconduct.  Attorney 
Grapsas failed to file the client's application with the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) timely, failed to 
keep the client adequately informed of the status of that 
application and respond promptly to her reasonable requests for 
information concerning it, misrepresented to the client on 
numerous occasions over an extended period that he had filed the 
No. 
98-0571-D 
 
2 
application, and altered the dates of the signatures of the 
client and her employer on the application without obtaining 
their authorization.  He also failed to advise his client of the 
steps necessary to continue her daughter's nonimmigrant status 
in this country and notify the client and her daughter promptly 
of the denial of the application he ultimately filed to extend 
the daughter's visa, failed to return the balance of the 
client's retainer she had paid him, and did not respond timely 
to 
letters 
from 
the 
Board 
of 
Attorneys 
Professional 
Responsibility (Board) inquiring into his conduct in the matter. 
 As discipline for that misconduct, the referee recommended 
that, at a minimum, his license to practice law be suspended for 
six months, that he be required to make restitution to the 
client, and that conditions be imposed on the reinstatement of 
his license. 
¶2 
We determine that the referee properly concluded that 
Attorney Grapsas engaged in professional misconduct in the 
client's immigration matter and that a six-month license 
suspension is the appropriate discipline to impose for that 
misconduct.  
Not 
only 
did 
he fail 
in his 
professional 
responsibility to pursue diligently the matter for which he was 
retained, but he also repeatedly led his client to believe that 
he had taken the appropriate steps in that matter and actively 
sought to keep his lack of diligence from his client, to the 
extent of altering dates on the forms he ultimately submitted to 
the governmental authorities.  In addition, he failed to render 
No. 
98-0571-D 
 
3 
the assistance the client rightfully expected concerning her 
daughter's immigration status.   
¶3 
This is the third occasion we have had to discipline 
Attorney Grapsas for similar misconduct in clients' immigration 
matters, and we are concerned that the pattern of misconduct he 
has established puts at risk those clients he currently is 
representing in immigration matters -- clients who may be 
particularly vulnerable because of their unfamiliarity and 
inexperience with our legal system.  Accordingly, we direct the 
Board to monitor closely Attorney Grapsas's compliance with the 
requirements imposed by our rule, SCR 22.26,1 on an attorney 
                     
1 SCR 22.26 provides:  Activities on revocation or suspension of 
license.   
 
(1) (a) A disbarred or suspended attorney on or before the 
effective date of disbarment or suspension shall:  
 
1. Notify, by certified mail, all clients being represented 
in pending matters of the disbarment or suspension and consequent 
inability to act as an attorney after the effective date of the 
disbarment or suspension.  
 
2. Advise the clients to seek legal advice of the client's 
own choice elsewhere.  
 
(b) A disbarred or suspended attorney with a matter pending 
before a court or administrative agency shall promptly notify 
the court or administrative agency and the attorney for each 
party of the disbarment or suspension and consequent inability 
to act as an attorney after the effective date of the disbarment 
or suspension. The notice must identify the successor attorney 
or, if there is none at the time of the notice, state the place 
of residence of the client of the disbarred or suspended 
attorney.  
 
(2) A suspended or disbarred attorney may not engage in the 
practice of law or in any law work activity customarily done by 
law students, law clerks or other paralegal personnel, except 
No. 
98-0571-D 
 
4 
                                                                  
that he or she may engage in law related work for a commercial 
employer not itself engaged in the practice of law.  
 
(3) A suspended or disbarred attorney shall make within the 
first 15 days after the effective date of disbarment or 
suspension, all arrangements for the permanent or temporary 
closing of or winding up of the attorney's practice and may only 
aid in having others take over clients' work in process. If a 
suspended or disbarred attorney disappears or dies and the 
attorney has failed to comply with this subsection and no 
partner, personal representative or other responsible party 
capable of conducting the attorney's affairs is known to exist, a 
judge of a court of record in a county in which the attorney 
maintained an office shall appoint an attorney to enter the 
former offices of the disbarred or suspended attorney or other 
location as may be necessary for the sole purpose of protecting 
the client's rights, the clients' files and the clients' 
property, and the delivery thereof to the clients or their 
successor counsel. The appointed attorney may be compensated out 
of the assets of the suspended or disbarred attorney in the 
amount approved by the judge.  
 
(4) The disbarred or suspended attorney shall file with the 
administrator within 25 days after the effective date of the 
disbarment or suspension order, an affidavit showing:  
 
(a) Full compliance with the provisions of the order and 
with the rules and procedures.  
 
(b) All other state, federal and administrative bodies 
before which the attorney is admitted to practice.  
 
(c) A list of all clients in pending matters, and a list of 
all matters pending before any court or administrative agency and 
the case number.  
 
(d) A 
disbarred or 
suspended 
attorney 
shall maintain 
records of the various steps taken under the rules and these 
procedures so that, upon any subsequent proceeding instituted by 
or against the attorney, proof of compliance with the rules and 
these procedures and with the disbarment or suspension order is 
available. Proof of compliance with these procedures is a 
condition precedent to reinstatement.  
 
(5) The administrator shall have published a notice of the 
suspension or disbarment in the Wisconsin bar bulletin and in a 
No. 
98-0571-D 
 
5 
whose license is suspended.  Among other things, he must notify 
all clients being represented in pending matters of his license 
suspension and consequent inability to act as attorney in those 
matters after the effective date of the suspension, advise those 
clients to seek legal advice elsewhere, and notify courts and 
administrative agencies where client matters are pending of his 
license suspension.  Further, his notice to courts and agencies 
                                                                  
newspaper of general circulation in each county in which the 
disbarred or suspended attorney maintained an office for the 
practice of law.  
 
(6) The administrator shall notify all judges in this state 
of the order of suspension or disbarment.  
 
(7) Nonpermitted activities of other lawyers. A member of 
the bar of this state may not use the name of a disbarred or 
suspended lawyer and may not authorize or knowingly permit a 
disbarred or suspended lawyer to:  
 
(a) Interview clients or witnesses or participate therein, 
except that in the course of employment by a commercial employer 
he or she may interview witnesses and participate in the 
investigation of claims;  
 
(b) Prepare cases for trial;  
 
(c) Do any legal research or other law work activity in a 
law office;  
 
(d) Write briefs or trial memoranda; or  
 
(e) Perform any services for him or her either on a salary 
or a percentage or a fee-splitting basis, except that he or she 
may share attorney fees on a quantum meruit basis only for 
services performed prior to disbarment or suspension;  
 
(f) An attorney shall not permit a disbarred or suspended 
attorney to engage in any activity prohibited by this rule.  
 
No. 
98-0571-D 
 
6 
must identify each client's successor attorney or, if there is 
none, specify where the client resides.  
¶4 
Attorney Grapsas was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1970 and practices in Madison, primarily in the 
area 
of 
immigration law. 
 
In 1993, 
the 
court publicly 
reprimanded him for failing to provide prompt and diligent 
representation to a client applying for U.S. citizenship, 
failing to keep that client reasonably informed of the status of 
that application and comply with her reasonable requests for 
information concerning it, refusing to return her unearned 
retainer when she terminated his representation, misrepresenting 
to his client, the Board, and the district professional 
responsibility committee that he had acted in the client's 
matter, and failing to respond timely to the Board's request for 
information concerning the client's grievance.  Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Grapsas, 174 Wis. 2d 816, 498 N.W.2d 400.   
¶5 
In March of this year, the court publicly reprimanded 
Attorney Grapsas for not explaining an immigration matter to a 
client to the extent reasonably necessary to permit her to make 
informed decisions regarding the representation and not informing 
her and her employer of substantial risks to the client's ability 
to work after the expiration date of her visa, failing to make 
reasonable inquiries with INS concerning his attempt to file a 
petition to change the client's status, not refiling the petition 
timely, and not responding to inquiries from the Board concerning 
the client's 
grievance. 
 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against 
Grapsas, 225 Wis. 2d 411, 591 N.W.2d 862 (1999).  
No. 
98-0571-D 
 
7 
¶6 
The referee in the instant matter, Attorney Linda 
Balisle, made findings of fact concerning Attorney Grapsas's 
representation of a client who retained him in October 1994 to 
file an application for permanent residency in the United 
States.  The client, a citizen of Nigeria, had nonimmigrant 
status as a teacher of French at a private secondary school in 
Indiana, and when she retained him or soon thereafter, she told 
Attorney Grapsas she had three minor children, one of whom had 
been born in Nigeria and was admitted into this country on 
dependent status.   
¶7 
Like her mother, the non-citizen child would require 
an extension of INS authorization in order to continue residing 
lawfully in this country beyond the expiration date of her 
current status.  However, when he filed a petition with INS to 
extend his client's nonimmigrant status on May 16, 1995, 
Attorney Grapsas did not ask INS to extend her daughter's 
dependent status.  He also did not advise his client that the 
child's dependent status would not be extended automatically 
upon the extension of her own nonimmigrant status.   
¶8 
By July 1995, the client had supplied Attorney Grapsas 
all of the information necessary for him to complete the 
Application for Alien Employment Certification, which was the 
first of four steps in applying for permanent residency.  
Attorney Grapsas prepared that application sometime during the 
summer or fall of 1995, and the client executed and returned it 
to him, assuming he would file it promptly with the appropriate 
governmental agencies.  At that time, the processing of such an 
No. 
98-0571-D 
 
8 
application 
in 
Indiana, 
where 
the 
client 
resided, 
took 
approximately 200 days, from the date of filing through the 
second step in the process -- review and decision by the U.S. 
Department of Labor. 
¶9 
Attorney Grapsas never told his client he did not 
intend to file the application promptly, nor did he ever discuss 
with her any strategic reason why it should not be filed 
immediately.  From November 1995 through the summer of 1996, the 
client periodically contacted or attempted to contact Attorney 
Grapsas by telephone concerning the status of the application.  
Attorney Grapsas did not return many of her telephone calls, but 
on one occasion when the client spoke with him, he told her the 
process would take a long time and assured her he would check 
into the matter.  During those contacts with the client, 
Attorney Grapsas never told her that in fact he had not filed 
the application, and his statements to the effect that he would 
check into the matter led the client to believe he had filed it 
and was awaiting response. 
¶10 When the client reminded him in August 1996, that her 
current visa would expire in one year, Attorney Grapsas 
responded that he would check the status of the application and 
let her know how the matter was progressing.  He again did not 
tell her that he had not filed the application.  The client's 
concern about her immigration status heightened in early 1997, 
and when she called Attorney Grapsas to remind him that only six 
months remained on her visa, Attorney Grapsas told her she could 
No. 
98-0571-D 
 
9 
not continue her employment if her status expired and suggested 
that she go to Canada to find employment.   
¶11 On February 21, 1997, the client told Attorney Grapsas 
she had spoken with an official at her school to see if there 
was something they could do to speed up the application process 
and that her employer was going to contact a state senator to 
find out why it was taking fifteen months to process her 
application.  When she asked him for the name and telephone 
number of the person at the Indiana agency handling the case, 
Attorney Grapsas said he did not have the information with him 
but would send it to her within three days, but he did not do 
so, even when the client telephoned him two days later to remind 
him that she needed that information.  During all of those 
telephone conversations, Attorney Grapsas never told his client 
he had not filed the application with the Indiana agency. 
¶12 Almost 
immediately 
thereafter, 
however, 
Attorney 
Grapsas sent the application by express mail on February 24, 
1997, and on the following day told his client she should expect 
a letter from the appropriate department that week.  Prior to 
filing it, Attorney Grapsas altered the dates on the application 
in order to make it appear that the client and her employer had 
signed it on November 14, 1996, rather than a year earlier, as 
they in fact had done.  Attorney Grapsas never spoke with his 
client or her employer about altering the dates of their 
signatures, nor had he obtained their authorization to do so. 
¶13 During the disciplinary proceeding, Attorney Grapsas 
asserted 
that 
a 
general 
shutdown 
in 
federal 
government 
No. 
98-0571-D 
 
10
operations had produced a large backlog of permanent residency 
applications, and he claimed that he had delayed filing the 
client's application because he was awaiting the Department of 
Labor's determination whether persons who had not yet filed 
would be given a separate processing channel to expedite their 
applications.  However, Attorney Grapsas provided no information 
indicating any proposals with INS or the Department of Labor 
during 1995 or 1996 to change the processing of applications in 
order to give priority to those who had not filed or to create a 
separate process for them.   
¶14 Regarding the nonimmigrant status of the client's 
daughter, the referee found that when she sought an extension of 
her own status in May 1995, the client did not know she would 
have to file a separate application to extend her daughter's 
dependent status and expected Attorney Grapsas to advise her if 
an application were needed.  Attorney Grapsas never asked 
whether his client knew the procedure to be followed to keep her 
daughter in dependent status. 
¶15 The 
client 
learned 
sometime 
in 
1996 
that 
her 
daughter's visa status had not been extended when her own 
nonimmigrant status was extended in May 1995.  When she 
discovered that the daughter's status had expired, the client 
contacted Attorney Grapsas, who told her they would need to file 
an extension application with INS.  He filed that application on 
or about March 10, 1997, and INS denied it May 1, 1997, and sent 
notice of that denial to Attorney Grapsas to forward to the 
client's daughter.  Attorney Grapsas did not notify either the 
No. 
98-0571-D 
 
11
client or her daughter that the application had been denied 
until June 3, 1997, when the client contacted him.  In the 
ensuing conversation, Attorney Grapsas told her he had received 
the notice denying the application about one week earlier.  When 
she asked why he had not sent her a copy of the decision denying 
the application, Attorney Grapsas told her, "There wasn't 
anything you could do about it anyway."  
¶16 In 
March 
1997, 
the 
client 
terminated 
Attorney 
Grapsas's 
representation and 
retained 
another 
attorney to 
complete the permanent residency process for her.  Early the 
following June, the client wrote Attorney Grapsas of her 
dissatisfaction with his representation of her and her daughter. 
 By return letter, Attorney Grapsas, while disputing some of her 
statements, agreed to return the $1,000 retainer the client had 
paid him for his services.  He then repaid $200 to the client 
but made no additional payments after the client filed a 
grievance against him with the Board.    
¶17 When an investigation into his conduct in this matter 
was initiated, Attorney Grapsas did not provide timely response 
to either the Board's first or second letter.  He neither gave a 
reason for not responding timely nor requested additional time 
to respond.  
¶18 On the basis of the facts found, the referee concluded 
that Attorney Grapsas engaged in the following professional 
misconduct.  By failing to file the client's application for 
fifteen months after she had returned it to him in a form ready 
No. 
98-0571-D 
 
12
to be filed, Attorney Grapsas violated SCR 20:1.3,2 which 
requires 
a 
lawyer 
to 
act 
with 
reasonable 
diligence 
and 
promptness in representing a client.  He violated SCR 20:1.4(a)3 
by failing to keep the client adequately informed of the status 
of her application and respond promptly to her requests for 
information concerning it.  By failing to notify his client and 
her daughter promptly of the INS denial of the daughter's 
application to extend her visa status, Attorney Grapsas violated 
SCR 20:1.4(a), and by failing to advise the client of the steps 
necessary to continue her daughter's nonimmigrant status when he 
filed the client's request for an extension of her status in May 
1995, he violated SCR 20:1.4(b),4 which requires a lawyer to 
explain a matter to a client to the extent reasonably necessary 
to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the 
representation.  
¶19 The referee also concluded that by representing to the 
client between November 1995 and late February 1997 that he had 
                     
2 SCR 20:1.3 provides:  Diligence 
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in representing a client.  
3 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.  
4 SCR 20:1.4(b) provides: 
(b) A 
lawyer 
shall 
explain 
a 
matter 
to 
the 
extent 
reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed 
decisions regarding the representation. 
No. 
98-0571-D 
 
13
filed the application for her, when in fact he had not, Attorney 
Grapsas engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, 
or misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).5  He 
violated that same provision by altering without the client's 
knowledge or authorization the dates of the signatures of the 
client and her employer on the application he filed.  His 
failure to respond timely to the Board's inquiries violated SCR 
22.07(2) and (3),6 and his failure to return the client's 
                     
5 SCR 20:8.4 provides, in pertinent part:  Misconduct 
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: 
 . . .  
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation;  
 . . .  
6 SCR 22.07(2) and (3) provide: 
(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.  
No. 
98-0571-D 
 
14
retainer in full violated SCR 20:1.16(d),7 which requires a 
lawyer, upon termination of representation, to take steps to the 
extent reasonably practicable to protect the client's interests 
-- here, to return the client's retainer so that she could 
retain new counsel.  
¶20 As 
discipline 
for 
that 
misconduct, 
the 
referee 
recommended that, at a minimum, the court suspend Attorney 
Grapsas's license to practice law for six months and order him 
to make full restitution to the client.  That recommendation was 
based on the referee's finding that while he acknowledged the 
facts she had found, Attorney Grapsas believed that his only 
misconduct was not keeping his client adequately informed of her 
legal matter.  The referee found further that Attorney Grapsas 
did not demonstrate any remorse for his misconduct or for the 
peril in which he placed both the client and her daughter with 
the INS; instead, he continued to maintain that his conduct was 
justified by various untenable legal theories.  The referee 
said,  "Grapsas's willingness to misrepresent to his client the 
status of her matter and to justify clearly negligent actions on 
unfounded legal theory and strategy and his total lack of 
                     
7 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. 
98-0571-D 
 
15
remorse for actions which threatened deportation of his client 
and her child warrant substantial discipline."   
¶21 The referee expressed concern that Attorney Grapsas's 
conduct in the instant proceeding and in the prior disciplinary 
proceedings suggest that he will not alter his conduct in the 
future.  She noted the particular vulnerability of immigration 
clients, who would be unlikely to know whether an attorney's 
license ever had been suspended for misconduct in matters 
similar to theirs, and the potentially disastrous effects of his 
misconduct on them. 
¶22 Notwithstanding her stated belief that he does not 
appear to lack the knowledge of proper procedure in immigration 
cases, such that he might benefit from a requirement to attend 
specific 
continuing 
legal 
education 
programs, 
the referee 
recommended that, as conditions for reinstatement of his 
license, Attorney Grapsas be required to attend continuing legal 
education courses related to subjects he intends to continue 
practicing and that he demonstrate an understanding of the 
relationship of his conduct to the consequences suffered by his 
client in the instant matter and to the public's perception of 
the legal profession. 
¶23 In this appeal, Attorney Grapsas put forth the same 
arguments he had made unsuccessfully to the referee.  He 
persisted in contending that he was under no professional 
obligation to provide his client with advice and counsel in 
respect to the dependent status of her daughter, asserting that 
under immigration law, an attorney-client relationship does not 
No. 
98-0571-D 
 
16
arise until the client's name is entered on a form by which the 
attorney enters an appearance in the matter.  He also reasserted 
his position that he had advised his client that if she wanted 
his 
assistance 
in 
respect 
to 
her 
daughter, 
a 
separate 
application for change of status would have to be completed and 
that the client responded that she would see to the matter 
herself.   
¶24 The referee properly rejected those arguments.  On the 
issue of what the client told Attorney Grapsas about her 
daughter's status and expected him to do about it, the referee 
found the client's testimony credible.  Also, it was undisputed 
that Attorney Grapsas knew the client's daughter was an alien 
residing in this country on dependent status but did not counsel 
his client about the need to file a separate extension 
application for the daughter at the time he prepared and filed 
an extension application for the client.  Moreover, Attorney 
Grapsas admitted that he did not inform his client that her 
daughter's dependent status would not be extended automatically 
upon the extension of her own and did nothing to learn if the 
client was aware of what needed to be done or ask the client 
what she had done for the daughter.   
¶25 Defending his delay in filing the client's Application 
for Alien Employment Certification, Attorney Grapsas insisted 
that it was a strategic decision designed to allow him to 
monitor the way in which the Department of Labor was processing 
those applications in the face of a substantial backlog.  
Accordingly, 
he 
argued, 
he 
withheld 
filing 
the 
client's 
No. 
98-0571-D 
 
17
application in order to learn if any exceptions would be made 
for new applications so that they would not be placed at the 
bottom of the backlog but instead be given preferential 
treatment.   
¶26 The referee considered those defenses an attempt "to 
justify clearly negligent actions on unfounded legal theory and 
strategy."  We agree.  During the many telephone calls from the 
client inquiring into the status of her application, Attorney 
Grapsas never told her he was delaying the filing for any 
reason, strategic or otherwise; instead, he led her to believe 
that he was waiting to hear from the governmental agency 
concerning the application and was speaking regularly with the 
authorities regarding it.  Even after he learned from an October 
16, 1996, Department of Labor announcement that no applications 
would be expedited under any circumstances, Attorney Grapsas did 
not file the client's application until more than four months 
later, and then only after the client insisted that he give her 
the file number of the application and the name of the person at 
the state agency he was dealing with so she could pursue the 
matter herself.  Even the message he sent the client the day 
after he filed the application was misleading, as it did not 
mention the filing he just made but stated merely that the 
client should expect to receive a letter soon from the state 
agency regarding the application.  
¶27 We are concerned that, notwithstanding those facts, 
Attorney Grapsas continued to contend in his briefs and at oral 
argument that his misconduct in this matter consisted, at most, 
No. 
98-0571-D 
 
18
of a failure to keep his client properly informed of the 
progress of her legal matter.  His insistence that he never 
misrepresented to the client that he had filed her application 
or engaged in misrepresentation by altering the dates on the 
forms prior to filing the application suggests that he is either 
unable or unwilling to understand and accept responsibility for 
his misconduct.  His contention that as an attorney he was 
authorized to alter the dates on the forms in order to "bring 
them up to date," without first contacting the client and the 
employer to ascertain whether the information on those forms was 
still accurate and obtaining their consent to the change of 
date, is disturbingly disingenuous.   
¶28 Finally, there is no merit to Attorney Grapsas's 
assertion that he did not fail to cooperate in the Board's 
investigation into his conduct by not responding to its 
inquiries within the time required.  The Board's letters were 
dated July 16 and August 14, 1997; the first required a response 
within 20 days, the second within 10 days.  Attorney Grapsas's 
written response was sent October 13, 1997.  Yet, he insisted 
that he did not fail to cooperate with the Board but merely 
delayed his response.   
¶29 The referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law 
regarding Attorney Grapsas's professional misconduct established 
in this proceeding are proper, and we adopt them.  While the 
referee stated that the repetitive nature of that misconduct, 
its potentially disastrous effect on vulnerable clients, and the 
fact that no further legal education or discipline is apt to 
No. 
98-0571-D 
 
19
alter his behavior require that revocation of Attorney Grapsas's 
license to practice law be considered, we determine that a six-
month license suspension, which was sought by the Board and will 
require a full reinstatement proceeding and order of the court, 
is the appropriate discipline to impose.  In addition, we will 
require that Attorney Grapsas repay his client in full the 
retainer she gave him for the representation she sought, but we 
decline the referee's recommendation to impose an unspecified 
continuing legal education condition on reinstatement of his 
license.  We are satisfied that the continuing legal education 
requirement imposed by court rule on all attorneys is adequate 
under the circumstances.  We note that as a part of the 
reinstatement proceeding, Attorney Grapsas will have to satisfy 
the court that he understands his professional obligations and 
will comply with the rules applicable to attorney professional 
conduct.  
¶30 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Nicholas C. Grapsas 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for six months, 
commencing January 10, 2000, as discipline for professional 
misconduct. 
¶31 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order he make restitution as specified herein.  
¶32 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Nicholas C. Grapsas, 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 
No. 
98-0571-D 
 
20
inability to pay the costs within that time, the license of 
Nicholas C. Grapsas to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain 
suspended until further order of the court. 
¶33 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Nicholas C. Grapsas 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