Title: Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility v. Thomas D. Baehr
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1999AP001570-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: February 9, 2000

2000 WI 8 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
99-1570-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Thomas D. Baehr, Attorney at Law. 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional  
Responsibility,  
 
Complainant, 
 
v. 
Thomas D. Baehr,  
 
Respondent.  
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BAEHR 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
February 9, 2000 
Submitted on Briefs: 
      
Oral Argument: 
      
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
      
 
Dissented: 
      
 
Not Participating:       
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
      
 
2000 WI 8 
  
 
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. 99-1570-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Thomas D. Baehr, Attorney at  
Law. 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional  
Responsibility,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Thomas D. Baehr,  
 
          Respondent.  
FILED 
 
FEB 9, 2000  
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Acting Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.  
¶1 
PER CURIAM   We review the recommendation of the 
referee that the license of Thomas Baehr to practice law in 
Wisconsin 
be 
suspended 
for 
90 
days 
as 
discipline 
for 
professional misconduct.  Attorney Baehr failed to take any 
action on behalf of an incarcerated client he was appointed by 
the State Public Defender to represent on appeal and on a claim 
of ineffective assistance of his previous counsel, did not 
communicate in any way with that client, and failed to respond 
to numerous requests for information from the Board of Attorneys 
Professional 
Responsibility 
(Board) 
and 
the 
district 
No. 
99-1570-D 
 
2 
professional responsibility committee concerning his conduct in 
the client's matter.   
¶2 
We determine that the egregious nature of Attorney 
Baehr's professional misconduct in his client's matter and with 
the investigating authorities warrants the suspension of his 
license to practice law for 90 days.  By that conduct, Attorney 
Baehr 
established 
a 
serious 
breach 
of 
his 
professional 
obligations to those he has undertaken to represent in the legal 
system and of his professional duty to cooperate with those this 
court has charged with investigating and prosecuting alleged 
lawyer professional misconduct.  That suspension should be 
sufficient to impress upon Attorney Baehr the seriousness of his 
professional obligations and deter others from engaging in 
similar misconduct.  
¶3 
Attorney Baehr was licensed to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1985 and practices in Stevens Point.  He has not 
been the subject of a prior disciplinary proceeding.  The 
referee, Attorney Cheryl Rosen Weston, made findings of fact 
based on Attorney Baehr's admissions to each allegation of the 
Board's complaint.  
¶4 
After being appointed in June 1997 by the Public 
Defender to represent on appeal a client who was incarcerated 
following revocation of his probation, Attorney Baehr took no 
action in the client's matter.  He neither acknowledged nor 
responded to two letters from the client requesting information 
about the status of the appeal, and he did not return two 
telephone calls from the client's mother that were made at the 
No. 
99-1570-D 
 
3 
client's request.  Attorney Baehr filed nothing with the court 
in connection with the representation of the client and never 
contacted either the client or his mother.  Approximately 17 
months after Attorney Baehr had been appointed to represent him 
on appeal, the client retained private counsel to do so. 
¶5 
In January 1998, the Board sent Attorney Baehr a copy 
of the grievance the client had filed and requested a written 
response.  When no response was received, the Board sent a 
second letter, to which Attorney Baehr did not respond.  The 
Board then referred the matter to the district professional 
responsibility committee for further investigation.  Attorney 
Baehr did not return three telephone calls or respond to two 
letters from the committee investigator, nor did he return the 
call of a third party the Board had asked to contact him.   
¶6 
On the basis of those facts, the referee concluded 
that by failing to file for any extension of time to review his 
client's case, file a no-merit report within six months, or take 
any other action on behalf of the client, Attorney Baehr failed 
to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing 
the client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3.1  His not communicating 
in any manner with the client, including his failure to respond 
to letters and telephone messages from the client and the 
client's mother, violated SCR 20:1.4(a),2 which requires a lawyer 
                     
1  SCR 20:1.3 provides: Diligence. 
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in representing a client.  
2  SCR 20:1.4(a) provides: 
No. 
99-1570-D 
 
4 
to keep a client reasonably informed of the status of a matter 
and comply promptly with reasonable requests for information.  
Attorney Baehr's failure to discuss or evaluate appellate issues 
and options with the client violated his duty under SCR 
20:1.4(b)3 to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary 
to permit a client to make informed decisions regarding the 
attorney's representation.  Finally, his failure to respond to 
letters and telephone messages from the Board and the district 
committee constituted a failure to cooperate with the Board's 
investigation, in violation of SCR 21.03(4) and 22.07(2).4 
                                                                  
(a) A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about 
the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable 
requests for information. 
3  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.  
4  SCR 21.03(4) provides: 
(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. 
   SCR 22.07(2) provides: 
No. 
99-1570-D 
 
5 
¶7 
As 
discipline 
for 
that 
misconduct, 
the 
referee 
recommended that Attorney Baehr's license to practice law be 
suspended for 90 days.  The referee explicitly based that 
recommendation on the injury Attorney Baehr's conduct caused his 
client.  As he was indigent and incarcerated, the client was 
unable to visit Attorney Baehr in person and demand services to 
which he was entitled; he could not conveniently discharge him 
and hire other counsel.  The referee considered "extreme" 
Attorney Baehr's failure to cooperate with the Board in its 
investigation into his conduct.  The Board and the district 
committee 
repeatedly 
notified 
him 
of 
his 
obligation 
to 
cooperate, but he chose repeatedly to ignore them.  The referee 
considered a significant license suspension necessary to deter 
others from engaging in similar misconduct. 
¶8 
We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law and determine that the appropriate discipline 
for Attorney Baehr's professional misconduct is a 90-day license 
suspension.  We also require that Attorney Baehr pay the costs 
of this disciplinary proceeding, as the referee recommended.   
                                                                  
(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. 
99-1570-D 
 
6 
¶9 
IT IS ORDERED that the license of Thomas D. Baehr to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for 90 days, commencing 
March 20, 2000. 
¶10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Thomas D. Baehr pay to the Board of Attorneys 
Professional Responsibility 
the costs 
of this 
proceeding, 
provided that in the event 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 
Thomas D. Baehr to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain 
suspended until further order of the court.   
¶11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Thomas D. Baehr 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