Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Robert T. Malloy
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1996AP003636-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: October 1, 1997

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
96-3636-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against 
Robert T. Malloy, 
Attorney at Law. 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MALLOY. 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
October 1, 1997 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating:  
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
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. 96-3636-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against ROBERT T. MALLOY, Attorney at Law. 
FILED 
 
OCT 1, 1997 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
1 
 
 
 
Attorney 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
 
Attorney’s 
license 
suspended.  
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report of the referee 
recommending that a three-month suspension of the license of 
Robert T. Malloy to practice law in Wisconsin be imposed as 
discipline for professional misconduct, consecutive to the one-
year license suspension we imposed on him in May, 1997. Attorney 
Malloy’s misconduct in the instant proceeding consisted of his 
failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 
representing clients, failing to return a client’s unearned fee 
upon termination of representation, failing to comply promptly 
with reasonable requests for information and keep clients 
reasonably informed of the status of their legal matters he was 
handling, and failing to respond to the Board of Attorneys 
Professional Responsibility (Board) in its investigation of 
misconduct allegations.  
No. 96-3636 
 
2 
¶2 
We 
determine 
that 
the 
professional 
misconduct 
established in this proceeding warrants the three-month license 
suspension recommended by the referee. The misconduct in three 
of the four matters occurred after the prior disciplinary 
proceeding had been commenced. Notwithstanding that pending 
proceeding, Attorney Malloy continued to violate the Rules of 
Professional 
Conduct 
for 
Attorneys 
in 
significant 
and 
substantial degree.  
¶3 
Attorney Malloy was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1992 and practiced in Milwaukee. In July, 1994, he 
consented to a public reprimand from the Board as discipline for 
failing to appear at municipal court trials on behalf of three 
clients, failing to appear at a hearing on the court’s order to 
show cause why he should not be held in contempt for his failure 
to appear at one of those trials, failing to maintain complete 
and accurate trust account records of client funds, commingling 
his personal and business funds with client funds in his trust 
account, and continuing to practice law while administratively 
suspended for nonpayment of State Bar dues. Effective June 10, 
1997, the court suspended his license to practice law for one 
year as discipline for mishandling client funds and commingling 
his own funds with them, failing to keep required trust account 
records, failing to respond to requests from clients for 
information concerning their matters, repeatedly failing to file 
or pursue legal matters for which he was retained, failing to 
refund unearned retainers promptly, and his repeated failure to 
cooperate with the Board in its investigation of client 
No. 96-3636 
 
3 
grievances. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Malloy, 209 Wis. 2d 
264, ___ N.W.2d ___ (1997). In addition to that suspension, the 
court conditioned reinstatement of his license on the condition 
that for two years following reinstatement his client trust 
account be audited at least quarterly at his own expense, as the 
Board may require.  
¶4 
When Attorney Malloy failed to file an answer to the 
Board’s complaint in the instant proceeding, the referee, 
Attorney Jean DiMotto, granted the Board’s motion for default 
judgment and made findings of fact and conclusions of law as 
follows. In December, 1994, a divorce was granted to Attorney 
Malloy’s client, and the court ordered him to prepare findings 
of fact, conclusions of law and a judgment of divorce. The 
document he submitted was inadequate, and the court returned it 
to him for correction. The second document he submitted a week 
later still was incorrect, and it was returned to him with a 
letter from the family court commissioner clerk setting forth 
three corrections to be made. Attorney Malloy did not resubmit 
the document for nine months, notwithstanding letters and 
telephone calls from the family court commissioner’s office 
reminding him to do so. When he did resubmit the document, it 
was the same as the one he originally submitted, with all of the 
original errors. The court again returned the document to him, 
with 
very 
specific 
instructions 
concerning 
the 
needed 
corrections.  
¶5 
Attorney Malloy did not submit another document for 
four months, and then only after the court issued two orders to 
No. 96-3636 
 
4 
show cause for contempt, to the first of which Attorney Malloy 
did not respond. The document he ultimately submitted also was 
defective, but the family court commissioner wrote by hand the 
necessary additions and marked deletions on the document and 
submitted it to the court for approval. The judge signed that 
document in October, 1996, more than 22 and one-half months 
after the divorce had been granted.  
¶6 
Attorney Malloy did not respond to letters from the 
Board notifying him of a grievance filed against him for his 
conduct in this matter. While participating in a scheduling 
conference in the prior disciplinary proceeding, he told Board 
counsel he would make an appointment to discuss this and three 
other grievances but never did so.  
¶7 
In a second matter, Attorney Malloy failed to appear 
in court on two criminal matters with which his client was 
charged. He attempted to return the $250 retainer he received 
for 
that 
representation 
but 
was 
unsuccessful, 
as 
his 
arrangements to visit the client in prison were not in order and 
he was refused admission. He subsequently sent a check to the 
client for the retainer, but the client returned it, as he was 
seeking payment in a larger amount. Attorney Malloy did not 
respond to the Board’s requests for information in this matter 
and did not schedule a meeting with the Board to discuss it.  
¶8 
A 
third 
matter 
concerned 
Attorney 
Malloy’s 
representation of a client in July, 1996 in a civil action. 
Attorney Malloy did not respond to opposing counsel’s request 
for admissions, a second set of interrogatories and a request 
No. 96-3636 
 
5 
for production of documents. He also did not respond to several 
inquiries from the client asking for information about a court 
date and did not inform the client of the date set by opposing 
counsel for her deposition. Instead, he telephoned opposing 
counsel on the morning of the scheduled deposition and said he 
could not participate because of an emergency. He did not tell 
the client of the rescheduled deposition until the day preceding 
it. The client terminated his representation and retained other 
counsel. The client incurred a penalty of $250 paid to opposing 
counsel for failure to comply timely with discovery requests 
while Attorney Malloy represented her. Attorney Malloy did not 
respond to Board inquiries into the matter and did not arrange 
to meet with the Board to discuss it.  
¶9 
In a fourth matter, Attorney Malloy was retained in 
June, 1996 to obtain return of the automobile belonging to his 
client’s brother that was seized when the client was arrested. 
Attorney Malloy failed to file the necessary documents timely, 
and the government kept the car. The client attempted to contact 
Attorney Malloy by telephone on more than 20 occasions to ask 
about the matter, but his calls were not returned. Attorney 
Malloy also did not respond to the Board’s inquiries into this 
matter.  
¶10 On the basis of these facts, the referee concluded as 
follows. Attorney Malloy’s failure to file correct final divorce 
papers for more than 18 months constituted a failure to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing the client, 
No. 96-3636 
 
6 
in violation of SCR 20:1.3.1 His failure to appear in court on 
behalf of his client in the criminal matter constituted a 
failure to act with reasonable diligence in representing him, in 
violation of SCR 20:1.3, and his failure to return the client’s 
retainer violated SCR 20:1.16(d).2 Attorney Malloy failed to keep 
his client reasonably informed about the status of the civil 
matter, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a).3 He also failed to act 
with reasonable diligence and promptness in the matter and 
comply promptly with the client’s reasonable requests for 
information in the automobile seizure, in violation of SCR 
20:1.3 and 1.4. Finally, Attorney Malloy’s repeated failure to 
                     
1 SCR 20:1.3 provides: Diligence 
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in representing a client.  
2 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 reasonably necessary.  
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. 96-3636 
 
7 
respond to the Board and arrange to discuss matters under its 
investigation violated SCR 21.03(4)4 and 22.07(2) and (3).5  
¶11 As discipline for 
the foregoing 
misconduct, the 
referee recommended that the court suspend Attorney Malloy’s 
license to practice law for three months consecutive to the 
license suspension that was imposed effective June 10, 1997. The 
referee 
noted 
that 
after 
the 
prior 
proceeding 
had 
been 
commenced, Attorney Malloy continued engaging in the same kind 
                     
4 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.  
5 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.  
(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. 96-3636 
 
8 
of misconduct that was under consideration in that proceeding, 
including his repeated failures to respond to and cooperate with 
the Board in its investigation of client grievances.  
¶12 We 
adopt 
the 
referee’s 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law and determine that the recommended three-
month license suspension is appropriate discipline for Attorney 
Malloy’s professional misconduct. 
¶13 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Robert T. Malloy to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for three months as 
discipline for professional misconduct, that suspension to 
commence June 10, 1998.  
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Robert T. Malloy 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 Robert T. Malloy 
to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until 
further order of the court.  
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Robert T. Malloy comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a 
person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended.