Title: Paul R. Horvath v.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1998AP000559-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: June 24, 1998

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
98-0559-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Paul R. Horvath, Attorney at Law. 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HORVATH 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
June 24, 1998 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating:  
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
No.  98-0559-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. 98-0559-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against PAUL R. HORVATH, Attorney at Law. 
FILED 
 
JUN 24, 1998 
 
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 
concluding that Attorney Paul R. Horvath engaged in professional 
misconduct by giving false information to a client regarding the 
status of her post-conviction matters, failing to respond to his 
client’s inquiries about the status of the matters, and failing 
to respond to inquiries from the Board of Attorneys Professional 
Responsibility 
(Board) 
and 
the 
district 
professional 
responsibility 
committee 
during 
the 
investigation 
of 
his 
conduct. The referee recommended that Attorney Horvath’s license 
to practice law be suspended for two years as discipline for 
that misconduct and that, as a condition of reinstatement of his 
license, he be required to provide a detailed accounting of the 
work he performed for the client in the post-conviction matters 
and proof that he has refunded to her any portion of the 
retainer she had paid that he did not earn.  
No.  98-0559-D 
 
2 
¶2 
We determine that the referee’s conclusions regarding 
Attorney Horvath’s professional misconduct were properly drawn 
from the facts alleged in the Board’s complaint, to which 
Attorney Horvath made no response. We also determine that the 
discipline 
and 
reinstatement 
condition 
recommended by the 
referee 
are 
appropriate 
under 
the 
circumstances. 
By 
his 
misconduct established in this proceeding and in three prior 
proceedings, Attorney Horvath has demonstrated his inability to 
render competent legal representation and an unwillingness to 
meet his professional responsibilities to the court and its 
disciplinary authorities.  
¶3 
Attorney Horvath was admitted to practice law in 1971 
and practices in Appleton. His license to practice law has not 
been reinstated following the six-month suspension the court 
imposed, effective November 3, 1997, for his failure to comply 
promptly with a client’s request for information in a collection 
matter, failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
on a client’s behalf, misrepresentation to a client that he had 
collected funds on the client’s behalf, and failing to deposit 
client funds in a trust account and maintain a client trust 
account pursuant to the court’s rules. Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Horvath, 212 Wis. 2d 678, 568 N.W.2d 776 (1997). Prior 
to that suspension, Attorney Horvath was disciplined twice: in 
1984, the court publicly reprimanded him for neglecting a 
client’s legal matter, misrepresenting to the client that he had 
reached a settlement on a damage claim and paying her the 
purported settlement from his own funds, and failing to respond 
No.  98-0559-D 
 
3 
timely to inquiries from the Board investigating the matter. 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Horvath, 119 Wis. 2d 265, 349 
N.W.2d 484. In 1991, he consented to a public reprimand from the 
Board for failing to commence a legal action on a client’s 
collection matter for eight months, failing to respond to 
requests for information concerning the status of that matter by 
the collection agency that had referred it to him, and failing 
to respond to the Board’s inquiries into the matter. When 
Attorney Horvath did not file an answer or otherwise appear in 
the instant proceeding after being personally served with the 
Board’s complaint, 
the 
referee, Attorney John 
Schweitzer, 
granted the Board’s motion for default judgment and made the 
following findings of fact as alleged in the complaint.  
¶4 
Attorney Horvath was retained in March, 1996 by a 
client seeking post-conviction relief in two criminal cases in 
which she had been sentenced in June, 1995 and imprisoned. 
Attorney Horvath was given a $1000 retainer for his services. 
After receiving pertinent material from the client regarding her 
convictions, Attorney Horvath told her she had a court date of 
May 10, 1996, but in fact nothing relating to that client had 
been scheduled for that date, as Attorney Horvath had not filed 
anything on her behalf. At some point during the week of the 
purported court date, Attorney Horvath told the client that her 
post-conviction motion had been denied and her court date 
canceled. He said he would file another motion for relief and 
would contact her.  
No.  98-0559-D 
 
4 
¶5 
Attorney Horvath did file a motion for sentence 
modification May 23, 1996, but that motion was denied on the 
ground that it did not contain any specific allegation that the 
court failed to exercise its discretion properly or that a new 
factor existed to justify consideration of the sentence. 
Attorney Horvath did not tell his client that the motion was 
denied but subsequently informed her that she had a new court 
date of July 25, 1996, but no such date had been scheduled. He 
also discussed that purported court date with the client’s 
mother, with her sister, and with her friend.  
¶6 
After receiving information from federal authorities 
that his client had cooperated in the successful prosecution of 
a large-scale drug conspiracy, Attorney Horvath told his client 
that he was canceling the July 25 court date and would obtain 
another date. In a subsequent telephone call from his client, he 
told her she had a new court date of August 20, 1996 and later 
confirmed that date with the client’s friend, who wanted to 
attend the hearing. When the friend appeared at the courthouse 
on the purported hearing date, he discovered that there was no 
hearing scheduled. When he telephoned Attorney Horvath for an 
explanation, he was told that the hearing had been canceled.  
¶7 
After she and her family learned from the court that 
no post-sentencing hearing ever had been scheduled and that the 
only action taken by the court was its order denying the 
sentence modification motion, the client wrote Attorney Horvath 
for a status report, but he did not respond. Attorney Horvath 
made another misrepresentation as to a purported hearing 
No.  98-0559-D 
 
5 
scheduled 
in 
the 
client’s 
matters, 
and 
when 
the 
client 
telephoned him with information that there was no hearing 
scheduled on that date, Attorney Horvath told her the judge was 
reviewing her file “informally.” That telephone conversation, 
which occurred October 9, 1996, was the last contact the client 
had with Attorney Horvath. Her subsequent calls and letters went 
unanswered.  
¶8 
During the Board’s investigation of his conduct in 
this matter, Attorney Horvath did not respond to two written 
requests for information regarding the client’s grievance. He 
did attend an interview with the investigator assigned by the 
district professional responsibility committee to pursue the 
matter, but he did not produce telephone records he twice was 
asked for.  
¶9 
On the basis of those facts, the referee concluded as 
follows. By repeatedly providing false information regarding the 
status of his client’s cases to her, to her family, and to her 
friend, 
Attorney 
Horvath 
engaged 
in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, in violation of 
SCR 20:8.4(c).1 His failure to provide accurate information to 
his client regarding the status of her sentence modification 
                     
1 SCR 20:8.4 provides, in pertinent part: Misconduct 
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: 
 . . .  
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation.  
No.  98-0559-D 
 
6 
matters constituted a failure to keep his client reasonably 
informed of the status of her legal matter, in violation of SCR 
20:1.4(a).2 By not responding to the client’s inquiries after 
October 9, 1996, Attorney Horvath failed to promptly comply with 
reasonable requests from a client for information, in violation 
of SCR 20:1.4(a). His failure to submit a written response to 
two investigative letters from the Board and to respond to two 
requests 
for 
information 
from 
the 
district 
committee 
investigator constituted a failure to cooperate with the Board’s 
investigation, in violation of SCR 21.03(4)3 and 22.07.4  
                     
2 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.  
3 SCR 21.03 provides, in pertinent part:  
 . . .  
(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:  
 . . .  
No.  98-0559-D 
 
7 
¶10 As discipline for that professional misconduct, the 
referee recommended that Attorney Horvath’s license to practice 
law be suspended for two years. He also recommended that the 
court require as a condition of reinstatement of his license 
that Attorney Horvath provide a detailed accounting of the work 
he did for this client and proof that he has returned to her any 
portion of the $1000 retainer he did not earn. In addition, the 
referee recommended that Attorney Horvath be required to pay the 
costs of this disciplinary proceeding.  
¶11 We 
adopt 
the 
referee’s 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law and determine that the two-year license 
suspension recommended as discipline for Attorney Horvath’s 
professional misconduct established 
in 
this 
proceeding is 
warranted. We also will require as a condition of reinstatement 
of his license, that Attorney Horvath provide the accounting and 
                                                                  
(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.  98-0559-D 
 
8 
proof of refund of retainer to his client that the referee has 
recommended.  
¶12 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Paul R. Horvath to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of two 
years, consecutive to the six-month license suspension imposed 
effective November 3, 1997.  
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of 
reinstatement, Attorney Paul R. Horvath provide a detailed 
accounting of the services he rendered on behalf of his client 
in the matter addressed in this proceeding and proof that he has 
refunded to that client any unearned portion of the retainer he 
received for his services.  
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Paul R. Horvath 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 Paul R. Horvath 
to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until 
further order of the court.  
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Paul R. Horvath 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