Title: Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility v. David P. Diamon
Citation: 2001 WI 28
Docket Number: 2000AP000821-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: April 4, 2001

2001 WI 28 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
00-0821-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against David P. Diamon, Attorney at Law. 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility,  
 
Complainant, 
 
v. 
David P. Diamon,  
 
Respondent.  
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST DIAMON 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
April 4, 2001 
Submitted on Briefs: 
      
Oral Argument: 
      
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
      
 
Dissented: 
      
 
Not Participating:       
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
      
 
2001 WI 28 
 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear in 
the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No. 00-0821-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against David P. Diamon, Attorney at  
Law. 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional  
Responsibility,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
David P. Diamon,  
 
          Respondent.  
 
FILED 
 
APR 4, 2001 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
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 Attorney David P. Diamon to practice 
law in Wisconsin be suspended for five months for professional 
misconduct.  That misconduct consists of failing to perform 
legal work for which fees were paid, failing to refund retainers 
when requested to do so by clients, and failing to cooperate 
No. 
00-0821-D 
 
2 
with the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (Board).1 
 In addition to the license suspension, the referee recommended 
that Attorney Diamon pay restitution, with interest, to the 
clients and that he pay the costs of this proceeding.   
¶2 
We determine that the seriousness of Attorney Diamon's 
professional misconduct warrants a five-month suspension of his 
license to practice law in Wisconsin.   
¶3 
Attorney Diamon was admitted to the practice of law in 
Wisconsin in 1997.  His license was suspended on November 1, 
1999, for non-payment of bar dues.  Attorney Diamon currently 
resides in Galt, California. 
¶4 
On March 22, 2000, the Board filed a complaint and 
order to answer.  The complaint alleged that Attorney Diamon 
engaged in professional misconduct with respect to two client 
matters.  The first matter involved a couple who hired Attorney 
Diamon to perform estate planning legal services and create a 
limited liability company (LLC) on their behalf.  The clients 
paid Attorney Diamon $1400 for the legal work to be performed on 
the estate plan and $500 for the creation of the LLC.  For 
approximately four weeks after their initial meeting with 
                     
1  Effective 
October 
1, 
2000, 
Wisconsin's 
attorney 
disciplinary process underwent a substantial restructuring.  The 
name of the body responsible for investigating and prosecuting 
cases involving attorney misconduct was changed to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation and the supreme court rules applicable to the 
lawyer regulation system were also revised.  Since the conduct 
underlying this case arose prior to October 1, 2000, the body 
will be referred to as "the Board" and all references to supreme 
court rules will be to those in effect prior to October 1, 2000. 
  
No. 
00-0821-D 
 
3 
Attorney Diamon, the clients made unsuccessful efforts to 
contact him.  The clients subsequently learned that Attorney 
Diamon had closed his Madison law office and relocated to 
California.  By letter dated November 2, 1998, the clients 
demanded return of the $1900 they had paid for the estate 
planning work and the formation of the LLC.  Attorney Diamon 
never completed the legal work for the clients nor did he refund 
the monies they had paid him. 
¶5 
The second allegation of misconduct detailed in the 
complaint stated that during May of 1998 another couple met with 
Attorney Diamon and retained him for the purpose of drafting 
trust documents for the benefit of their minor children.  This 
couple paid Attorney Diamon a fee of $1500.  Although the 
clients attempted to contact Attorney Diamon in the summer and 
fall of 1998 he did not return their calls.  The clients later 
found that Attorney Diamon's telephone had been disconnected.  
Attorney Diamon never informed the clients that he had closed 
his law practice in Madison and relocated to California.  
Attorney Diamon never drafted the trust documents for the 
clients nor did he refund their retainer.   
¶6 
By letters dated August 13 and August 25, 1999, an 
attorney assigned to investigate the matter by the District 9 
Professional Responsibility Committee (PRC) wrote to Attorney 
Diamon asking for additional information and requesting that he 
contact her office to schedule a telephone conference.  By 
letter dated August 30, 1999, Attorney Diamon requested more 
time to respond.  The PRC investigator gave him until September 
No. 
00-0821-D 
 
4 
24, 1999, to provide a response and asked that he provide a 
telephone number where he could be reached and available dates 
for a telephone conference.   
¶7 
By letter dated September 24, 1999, Attorney Diamon 
advised the PRC that he would be hiring an attorney to assist 
him with the matter.  On October 18, 1999, he wrote another 
letter saying he would not be hiring an attorney.  On October 
31, 1999, Attorney Diamon provided a response to the PRC which 
failed to address some of the questions raised by the PRC 
investigator.  He never provided a telephone number where he 
could be reached for purposes of an interview.   
¶8 
A scheduling conference was held on June 13, 2000, in 
which both Attorney Diamon and the Board's counsel participated. 
 A two-day hearing was set for September 11 and 12, 2000.  On 
September 9, 2000, Attorney Diamon sent an e-mail message to the 
Board's counsel indicating that he would not be returning from 
California for the hearing.  He requested a continuance of the 
hearing, which the referee denied.  The referee offered to allow 
Attorney Diamon to appear at the hearing by telephone.  The 
hearing was held as scheduled on September 11, 2000.  The 
referee, John N. Schweitzer, telephoned Attorney Diamon and 
received no answer.  The hearing proceeded, and the Board's 
counsel presented witness testimony from two of the clients, 
along with documentary evidence.  The evidentiary portion of the 
hearing was concluded on September 11, 2000.  The record was 
held open to allow Attorney Diamon to read the transcript and 
respond to Board counsel's argument and recommendation for 
No. 
00-0821-D 
 
5 
discipline.  Attorney Diamon filed his argument on October 17, 
2000.  Board counsel filed a letter reply on October 20, 2000.  
The record of the proceeding was closed on October 25, 2000. 
¶9 
The referee concluded that Attorney Diamon was in 
default in the disciplinary proceeding under SCR 22.23(2)2 and 
Wis. Stat. § 806.02(5),3 for failing to appear at the scheduled 
hearing.   
¶10 The 
referee 
concluded 
that 
by 
failing 
to 
seek 
additional information from the first clients that was required 
in order to conclude his legal work for them and by failing to 
do any work in developing the trust for the second clients, 
Attorney Diamon violated SCR 20:1.3.4  The referee also concluded 
that by failing to communicate with his clients, by failing to 
notify them that he was closing his office and moving out of 
state, and by failing to provide his clients with a forwarding 
address, Attorney Diamon violated SCR 20:1.4(a).5  The referee 
                     
2  Former SCR 22.23(2) provided: 
(2)  The rules of civil procedure apply in disciplinary 
proceedings except as otherwise provided in the rules.  
 
3  Wisconsin Stat. § 806.02(5) provides: 
A default judgment may be rendered against any defendant 
who has appeared in the action but who fails to appear at trial. 
 If proof of any fact is necessary for the court to render 
judgment, the court shall receive the proof.   
4  SCR 20:1.3 provides:  Diligence  
 
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in representing a client.  
 
5  SCR 20:1.4(a) provides: 
No. 
00-0821-D 
 
6 
further found that by effectively terminating his representation 
of his clients without performing any services and by failing to 
refund the clients' retainer fees, Attorney Diamon violated SCR 
20:1.16(d).6  The referee also concluded that by failing to 
respond to the PRC's inquiries, by failing to provide a timely 
response to those inquiries, and by failing to provide a means 
for being contacted by telephone by the PRC for interview 
purposes as requested, Attorney Diamon violated SCR 21.03(4).7 
¶11 The 
referee concluded that 
a 
five-month license 
suspension was appropriate.  Although the referee found that 
Attorney Diamon's professional violations were troublesome, he 
noted that the abandonment of Attorney Diamon's practice was not 
accompanied by any aggravating factors such as a failure to file 
papers to preserve client rights in ongoing cases.  The referee 
                                                                  
(a)  A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about 
the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable 
requests for information.  
 
6  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.  
 
7  Former SCR 21.03(4) provided: 
(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. 
00-0821-D 
 
7 
also recommended that Attorney Diamon be ordered to pay 
restitution to the clients, with interest at 5%, and he 
recommended that payment of restitution be treated as a 
condition of the reinstatement of Attorney Diamon's license.   
¶12 We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law and determine that to be the appropriate 
discipline 
for 
Attorney 
Diamon's 
professional 
misconduct.  
Attorney Diamon's failure to perform legal work for which he was 
paid, his failure to refund retainer fees to his clients, and 
his failure to cooperate with the Board's investigation are 
serious failings warranting a suspension of his license.  A 
five-month suspension of his license to practice law is 
appropriate discipline for this professional misconduct.   
¶13 IT IS ORDERED that the license of David P. Diamon to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of five 
months, effective May 8, 2001.   
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that David P. Diamon comply with 
the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person 
whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. 
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that David P. Diamon refund 
$1900 plus interest at the rate of 5% per year from July 14, 
1998, to the first clients, and that he refund $1500 plus 
interest at the rate of 5% per year from May 15, 1998, to the 
second clients.  If these refunds are not made within 60 days 
from the date of this order, the license of David P. Diamon to 
practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further 
order of the court. 
No. 
00-0821-D 
 
8 
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order David P. Diamon pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  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 David P. Diamon to practice law in Wisconsin shall 
remain suspended until further order of the court.  
No. 
00-0821-D 
9