Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Robert Glickman
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1996AP001758-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: March 12, 1997

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
96-1758-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against  
Robert Glickman, 
Attorney at Law. 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GLICKMAN 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
March 12, 1997 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating:  
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
No.  96-1758-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. 96-1758-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against ROBERT GLICKMAN, Attorney at Law. 
FILED 
 
MAR 12, 1997 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
Attorney 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
 
Attorney’s 
license 
suspended. 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report of the referee 
recommending that the license of Robert Glickman to practice law 
in Wisconsin be suspended for 60 days as discipline for 
professional misconduct. 
That 
misconduct consisted of his 
failure to pursue a client’s legal malpractice action and 
respond to the client’s attempts to communicate with him 
regarding the matter and his failure to pursue a client’s 
probation revocation matter to which he was appointed by the 
State Public Defender.  
¶2 
We determine that the recommended 60-day license 
suspension is appropriate discipline to impose for Attorney 
Glickman’s professional misconduct in these matters. His failure 
to provide competent representation to a client whose interests 
he undertook to pursue and his abandonment of a client sentenced 
 
 
No.  96-1758-D 
 
 
2 
to prison for probation violation constitute serious breaches of 
his professional obligations to those whose interests he had 
agreed to protect.  
¶3 
Attorney Glickman was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1991 and practiced in Madison. He currently resides 
in Atlanta, Georgia. He has not previously been the subject of a 
disciplinary proceeding. He refused to file an answer to the 
complaint of the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility 
(Board) or otherwise contest the allegations of professional 
misconduct, and the referee, Attorney Judith Sperling Newton, 
made findings of fact consistent with those allegations.  
¶4 
In February, 1992, Attorney Glickman filed a legal 
malpractice action on behalf of a client. Thereafter, he did not 
comply with the terms of the court’s pretrial order setting a 
time 
for 
disclosing 
expert 
witnesses, 
completing 
medical 
examinations, and identifying and marking all exhibits intended 
to be offered at trial. Opposing counsel wrote to him one month 
after the date by which he was to have named expert witnesses, 
reminding him of his failure to do so. Attorney Glickman did not 
respond.  
¶5 
When counsel for the defendant filed a motion seeking 
to prohibit the plaintiff from presenting the testimony of any 
experts, Attorney Glickman did not file a response. At the end 
of the week preceding the scheduled trial, Attorney Glickman 
filed a motion for a continuance, stating that the trial date 
conflicted with a federal court proceeding in which he was 
representing a co-defendant and that as a sole practitioner 
without staff, he could not be prepared for both actions. The 
 
 
No.  96-1758-D 
 
 
3 
court denied the motion for continuance and granted the defense 
motion. During a recess of the motion hearing, the client’s case 
was settled for $25,000, $2500 more than the client had been 
offered prior to retaining Attorney Glickman to represent him.  
¶6 
The referee concluded that Attorney Glickman’s conduct 
in this matter constituted a failure to provide competent 
representation, in violation of SCR 20:1.1,1 and a failure to act 
with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a 
client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3.2  
¶7 
In 
a 
second 
matter, 
the 
State 
Public 
Defender 
appointed Attorney Glickman to provide appellate representation 
to a man whose probation was revoked and who was sentenced to 
prison. Between the time of his appointment on May 13, 1994 and 
November 7, 1994, when the Public Defender reassigned the case 
to other counsel, Attorney Glickman filed no pleadings either to 
initiate review of the client’s probation revocation or to 
convey to the court, the Public Defender, and the client that 
such review would have no merit.  
¶8 
The client attempted on several occasions without 
success to reach Attorney Glickman by telephone and by letter, 
but Attorney Glickman did not contact him. After receiving the 
                     
1 SCR 20:1.1 provides: Competence 
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 20:1.3 provides: Diligence 
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in representing a client.  
 
 
No.  96-1758-D 
 
 
4 
client’s complaint of his inability to contact him, State Public 
Defender 
staff 
wrote 
to 
Attorney 
Glickman 
requesting 
an 
immediate telephone call. Attorney Glickman did not respond. On 
October 12, 1994, after receiving another complaint from the 
client, staff wrote to Attorney Glickman requesting immediate 
contact concerning the client’s complaints and stating that if a 
response were not received by October 25, 1994, other counsel 
would be appointed for the client. Attorney Glickman did not 
respond. Some time prior to the appointment of another attorney, 
Attorney Glickman decided to terminate his law practice in 
Wisconsin, but he did not communicate that decision either to 
the client or to the State Public Defender. Only after receiving 
inquiries from the State Public Defender and after the client’s 
case was assigned to other counsel did Attorney Glickman notify 
the courts of his decision to close his law practice.  
¶9 
The referee concluded that Attorney Glickman’s conduct 
in this matter constituted a failure to act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client, in violation 
of SCR 20:1.3, a failure to keep a client reasonably informed of 
the status of his legal matter and comply with reasonable 
requests for information, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a),3 and a 
failure to take steps reasonably practicable to protect a 
                     
3 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. 
 
 
No.  96-1758-D 
 
 
5 
client’s 
interests 
upon 
termination 
of 
the 
client’s 
representation, in violation of SCR 20:1.16(d).4  
¶10 As discipline for that professional misconduct, the 
referee recommended that the court suspend Attorney Glickman’s 
license to practice law in Wisconsin for 60 days. We determine 
that 
the 
recommended 
license 
suspension 
is 
appropriate 
discipline to impose. We also determine, contrary to the 
referee’s recommendation, that Attorney Glickman should be 
required to pay the costs of this proceeding. Notwithstanding 
that he filed no answer to the Board’s complaint and did not 
otherwise 
contest 
the 
allegations 
of 
misconduct, 
he 
is 
responsible for the costs incurred by the Board in this 
proceeding. 
¶11 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Robert Glickman to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, 
commencing the date of this order.  
¶12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Robert Glickman pay to the Board of Attorneys 
Professional Responsibility 
the costs 
of this 
proceeding, 
provided that if the costs are not paid within the time 
                     
4 SCR 20:1.16 provides, in pertinent part: Declining or 
terminating representation 
. . . 
(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.  96-1758-D 
 
 
6 
specified and absent a showing to this court of his inability to 
pay the costs within that time, the license of Robert Glickman 
to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until 
further order of the court.  
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Robert Glickman comply with 
the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person 
whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended.