Title: Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility v. Mel Cyrak
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1994AP002428-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: December 18, 1995

No. 94-2428-D 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
 
 
 
 
No.  94-2428-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN             :                IN SUPREME COURT 
                                                                   
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against MEL CYRAK, Attorney at Law. 
 
FILED 
 
 
DEC 18, 1995 
 
 
 Marilyn L. Graves 
  Clerk of Supreme Court 
  
Madison, WI  
 
                                                                
   
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
 
Attorney's 
license 
suspended. 
 
PER CURIAM.   This is an appeal from the referee's conclusion 
that Attorney Mel Cyrak engaged in professional misconduct in his 
representation of a bankruptcy client in Texas and by his failure 
to respond to the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility 
(Board) in the course of its investigation of the matter.  In 
addition to that conclusion, Attorney Cyrak appealed from the 
referee's recommendation that his license to practice law in 
Wisconsin be suspended for 60 days as discipline for that 
misconduct.   
 
No. 94-2428-D 
 
 
 
2 
 
We determine that Attorney Cyrak's failure to represent his 
bankruptcy client diligently and promptly and keep her informed of 
the status of her legal matter by responding to her repeated 
requests for information, as well as his refusal to respond to the 
Board in its investigation, warrant the recommended license 
suspension.  Attorney Cyrak failed to meet his professional 
responsibility to the client who retained him and violated his 
professional duty to respond to the authority charged with 
enforcing the court's rules of attorney professional conduct.   
 
Attorney Cyrak was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in 
1972 and, until moving to Texas in 1984, practiced in Madison and 
Waterloo.  He was never admitted to the Texas bar but was admitted 
to practice before the U.S. District Court for the Northern 
District of Texas in 1985.  The bankruptcy court of that district 
barred him from practice before it in May, 1994 for inattention to 
his obligations in representing bankruptcy clients and, while a 
member of the Chapter 7 trustee panel, ignoring and repeatedly 
violating the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, including his 
consistent failure to file necessary paperwork timely, and for his 
failure to refund a portion of his attorney fee in a case as 
ordered.  His disbarment from practice before that court was also 
based on his failure to maintain his right to practice law in 
Wisconsin, which was suspended for his noncompliance with 
continuing legal education rules, as his admission to the bar of 
the bankruptcy court was predicated on his admission to the 
 
No. 94-2428-D 
 
 
 
3 
Wisconsin bar.  Attorney Cyrak currently is suspended from 
practice in Wisconsin for failure to comply with those rules.   
 
The referee, Attorney Rudolph P. Regez, made findings of fact 
following a disciplinary hearing.  In February, 1993, Attorney 
Cyrak was retained by a Texas resident to file a Chapter 13 
bankruptcy petition, for which she gave him $750, $150 for the 
filing fee and a $600 advance on his attorney fee.  Attorney Cyrak 
filed the bankruptcy petition March 3, 1993 and the court 
scheduled a meeting of creditors for April 22, 1993.   
 
On March 31, 1993, the bankruptcy trustee issued a notice of 
intent to certify the case for dismissal because certain schedules 
had not been filed with the petition and the debtor's statement of 
financial affairs and preliminary plan were not filed.  The notice 
stated that failure to cure the deficiencies within 48 hours would 
subject the petition to dismissal without further notice.  A copy 
of that notice was mailed to Attorney Cyrak and to his client.   
 
When the deficiencies were not remedied, the bankruptcy court 
dismissed the client's case without prejudice April 1, 1993, 
providing that the case could be refiled upon payment of the 
required fee.  Attorney Cyrak did not tell his client of the 
dismissal until he filed a second petition on her behalf May 4, 
1993.  Three weeks later, the trustee issued another notice of 
intent to certify the case for dismissal and subsequently 
dismissed the case because the debtor's preliminary plan and 
mailing matrix did not list the same creditors and because the 
 
No. 94-2428-D 
 
 
 
4 
debtor failed to provide a certificate of service showing that the 
documents had properly been served on all parties in interest.   
 
The client wrote to Attorney Cyrak five times between May 24 
and November 3, 1993 requesting information concerning the status 
of her petition.  She reminded Attorney Cyrak that she had sent 
him copies of bills from her creditors but they told her that her 
case had been dismissed.  When Attorney Cyrak refused to answer 
those letters or return her telephone calls, the client dismissed 
him as her attorney on November 27, 1993 and demanded return of 
the $750 she had paid him.  Attorney Cyrak did not acknowledge or 
respond to her communication.   
 
Asserting that she had been subjected to penalties in respect 
to her mortgage indebtedness and had incurred additional court 
expense as a result of Attorney Cyrak's neglect of her bankruptcy 
matter, the client filed a grievance with the State Bar of Texas. 
 Because it lacked jurisdiction to take any action for the reason 
that Attorney Cyrak was not licensed to practice in Texas courts, 
the Texas State Bar forwarded the grievance to the Board here.  
When the Board informed him of the grievance December 7, 1993 and 
requested a written response within 20 days, Attorney Cyrak did 
not respond.  He also made no response to a subsequent certified 
letter from the Board informing him of his duty to cooperate with 
the Board in its investigation and the consequences of his failure 
to do so.   
 
No. 94-2428-D 
 
 
 
5 
 
On the basis of those facts, the referee concluded that 
Attorney Cyrak failed to respond to reasonable client requests for 
information concerning the status of her legal matter, including 
the fact that her bankruptcy cases had been dismissed, in 
violation of SCR 20:1.4(a).1  Also, by failing to timely file 
required documents in the bankruptcy proceedings, which resulted 
in their dismissal, Attorney Cyrak violated SCR 20:1.3,2 which 
requires an attorney to act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness in representing a client.  Finally, the referee 
concluded that Attorney Cyrak violated SCR 21.03(4)3 and 22.07(2)4 
                     
     1  SCR 20:1.4 provides, in pertinent part:  Communication 
 
(a)  A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about 
the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable 
requests for information.   
     2  SCR 20:1.3 provides:  Diligence 
 
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in representing a client.   
     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.   
     4  SCR 22.07 provides, in pertinent part:  Investigation. 
 
. . . 
 
(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.   
 
No. 94-2428-D 
 
 
 
6 
by failing to respond to requests of the Board for information 
concerning the client's grievance.   
 
As discipline for that misconduct, the referee recommended 
that Attorney Cyrak's license to practice law in Wisconsin be 
suspended for 60 days.  The referee took into account as a 
mitigating factor that during the period of time relevant to his 
misconduct, Attorney Cyrak had spent considerable time traveling 
from Texas to Wisconsin to care for his dependent mother, who had 
suffered serious heart problems and underwent surgery.  The 
referee also noted Attorney Cyrak's cooperation during the 
disciplinary proceeding itself and that he has refunded the 
client's retainer in full.   
 
In this appeal, Attorney Cyrak contended that the federal 
bankruptcy court had exclusive jurisdiction in respect to 
disciplinary matters concerning his conduct before that court and, 
consequently, he was under no obligation to respond to the 
disciplinary authority of this court investigating his client's 
grievance.  There is no merit to that contention.  Our rules 
specifically provide that a person admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin is subject to the court's disciplinary authority 
regardless of the location of the lawyer's practice.  SCR 20:8.5.5  
                     
     5  SCR 20:8.5 provides:  Jurisdiction 
 
A lawyer admitted to practice in this jurisdiction is subject 
to the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction although 
engaged in practice elsewhere.   
 
No. 94-2428-D 
 
 
 
7 
 
Likewise without merit are Attorney Cyrak's arguments that 
his conduct in the client's bankruptcy matter did not constitute a 
"serious" failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
and that his communications with her regarding the matter were 
reasonable under the circumstances.  While he insisted that his 
client was aware that his mother's health problem necessitated his 
frequent travel to Wisconsin, Attorney Cyrak never discussed with 
the client the possibility of another attorney handling her 
bankruptcy matter while he was away from Texas.   
 
We adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of 
law and determine that the recommended 60-day license suspension 
is 
appropriate 
discipline 
to 
impose 
for 
Attorney 
Cyrak's 
professional misconduct established in this proceeding.  We also 
require Attorney Cyrak to pay the costs of this proceeding.   
 
IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Mel Cyrak to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, 
effective the date of this order.   
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this 
order Mel Cyrak 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 Mel Cyrak to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain 
suspended until further order of the court.   
 
No. 94-2428-D 
 
 
 
8 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mel Cyrak comply with the 
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose 
license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended.   
 
No. 94-2428-D 
 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
                                                              
 
Case No.: 
 
94-2428-D 
                                                              
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
In the Matter of Disciplincary 
 
 
 
Proceedings Against 
 
 
 
Mel Cyrak, 
 
 
 
Attorney at Law. 
 
 
 
______________________________________ 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST CYRAK 
 
                                                              
 
Opinion Filed:  
December 18, 1995 
Submitted on Briefs: 
November 30, 1995 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
                                                              
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
                                                              
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating: 
 
                                                              
 
ATTORNEYS:  
For Mel Cyrak the cause was submitted on the brief 
by Mel Cyrak, Dallas, TX. 
 
 
For the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility there 
was a brief by John F. Jenswold, counsel, Madison.