Title: Terrence J. Woods v.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1997AP001385-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: February 24, 1998

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
97-1385-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Terrence J. Woods, Attorney at Law. 
  
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST WOODS 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
February 24, 1998 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating:  
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
No. 97-1385-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. 97-1385-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against TERRENCE J. WOODS, Attorney at 
Law. 
FILED 
 
FEB 24, 1998 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
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 Terrence J. Woods to 
practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for 60 days as discipline 
for professional misconduct. 
That 
misconduct 
consisted of 
failing to keep a client reasonably informed of the status of a 
matter, 
promptly 
comply 
with 
reasonable 
requests 
for 
information, and surrender property to which the client was 
entitled; failing to act with reasonable diligence and comply 
promptly with a client’s reasonable requests for information in 
another matter and initially failing to cooperate with the 
investigation 
of 
the 
Board 
of 
Attorneys 
Professional 
Responsibility (Board) into it and making a misrepresentation in 
a disclosure to the Board; and failing to act with reasonable 
diligence on another client’s behalf and to cooperate with the 
Board’s investigation into the matter.  
No. 97-1385-D 
 
2 
¶2 
We determine that the recommended 60-day license 
suspension is the appropriate discipline to impose for Attorney 
Woods’ professional misconduct established in this proceeding. 
This is the third time Attorney Woods is being disciplined for 
misconduct. That fact, together with the seriousness and extent 
of his misconduct considered here, warrants the suspension of 
his license for the minimum period.  
¶3 
Attorney Woods was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1965 and practices in Oconto Falls. He has been 
disciplined for professional misconduct twice previously. In 
March, 1993, he consented to a public reprimand from the Board 
for failing to pursue properly the representation of two clients 
in criminal matters, including never filing a notice of intent 
to seek postconviction relief or otherwise pursue an appeal and 
failing to respond to numerous inquiries from the client and two 
from the Public Defender’s office that had appointed him in the 
matter. In January, 1996, he consented to a private reprimand 
from the Board as discipline for consenting to a settlement of a 
client’s case on the record without first having discussed the 
proposed settlement terms with the client and obtaining her 
consent to accept the settlement and failing to provide the 
client information in the matter and return to her documents and 
property to which she was entitled. The referee in the instant 
proceeding, Timothy L. Vocke, reserve judge, made findings of 
fact to which the parties had stipulated concerning Attorney 
Woods’ conduct in three matters.  
No. 97-1385-D 
 
3 
¶4 
The first matter concerned the representation of a 
client on a claim of mistreatment while in jail. Attorney Woods 
requested an advance payment of $500 toward his fees, and the 
client’s mother sent him $300. He filed a notice of claim on the 
client’s behalf November 10, 1993, identifying himself as the 
client’s lawyer, but thereafter, the only contact he had with 
the client was in February, 1994, when he visited the client in 
jail. After obtaining the client’s medical records from several 
healthcare providers, Attorney Woods received a letter in 
August, 1994 from the prospective defendant stating that the 
claim was denied. Attorney Woods did nothing further on the 
case, did not respond to a number of letters from the client 
requesting information about its status, and did not return the 
$300 fee payment or give the client his file, as requested. The 
referee concluded that Attorney Woods failed to keep the client 
reasonably informed of the status of his matter and promptly 
comply with reasonable requests for information, in violation of 
SCR 20:1.4(a),1 and failed to surrender property to which the 
client was entitled, in violation of SCR 20:1.16(d).2  
                     
1 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.  
2 SCR 20:1.16 provides, in pertinent part: Declining or 
terminating representation 
 . . .  
No. 97-1385-D 
 
4 
¶5 
In the second matter, Attorney Woods was retained by a 
client to appeal a criminal conviction. The State Public 
Defender’s office had obtained an extension of time to file a 
notice of intent to seek postconviction relief, as the original 
notice filed by trial counsel was not timely and a subsequent 
notice was technically defective. After the SPD obtained his 
release on bond pending appeal, the client asked Attorney Woods 
to appeal on the ground that at sentencing the prosecutor had 
breached a plea agreement by arguing for a one-year jail 
sentence when, according to the client, the prosecutor had 
agreed to argue for no more than six months in jail.  
¶6 
When Attorney Woods failed to file the appellant’s 
brief by the due date, the Court of Appeals sent him a 
delinquency notice. Attorney Woods then filed a motion for a 14-
day extension, claiming an extremely heavy trial caseload as the 
reason for the delay in filing the brief. The Court of Appeals 
granted the motion but sent a second delinquency notice when it 
did not receive the brief by the extended due date. On April 30, 
1996, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for Attorney 
Woods’ failure to file the brief. The referee concluded that 
                                                                  
(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. 97-1385-D 
 
5 
Attorney Woods failed to act with reasonable diligence in this 
matter, in violation of SCR 20:1.3.3  
¶7 
After the Court of Appeals referred this matter to the 
Board, Attorney Woods responded to the initial request for 
information from the Board’s investigator that the client was 
“unlocatable” during a portion of the appellate process and that 
when he was located, he expressed the desire not to have the 
appeal pursued. Attorney Woods did not respond to the Board 
investigator’s subsequent letter asking for particulars in 
respect to the information Attorney Woods had provided. He also 
did not respond to a request for the same information from the 
district professional responsibility committee investigator, to 
whom the Board referred the matter. He did not respond to a 
second request or return several telephone calls from the 
investigator, who ultimately served him with a notice to appear 
and examined him under oath in October, 1996.  
¶8 
Attorney Woods was unable to produce a letter of 
retainer or any other document describing the agreement between 
himself and the client regarding the scope or duration of the 
appellate representation. He told the committee investigator 
that the client retained him to commence an appeal in order to 
be out on bond for the remainder of the summer and that once 
that objective had been accomplished, he expected to confer 
                     
3 SCR 20:1.3 provides: Diligence 
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in representing a client.   
No. 97-1385-D 
 
6 
further with the client concerning whether he wanted to proceed 
with the appeal. He said he lost track of the client in the 
winter of 1995 and wrote to him in December of that year asking 
him to come in for a conference about the appeal but received no 
response. He said his staff attempted repeatedly to call the 
client in January and February of 1996 but were unsuccessful in 
reaching him. The only evidence in Attorney Woods’ file of any 
attempt to contact the client was a copy of a letter dated 
December, 1995; there was no record of any attempted telephone 
contacts or copies of any cover letters or other documents 
indicating that Attorney Woods had forwarded court documents to 
the client. Attorney Woods told the investigator that as he 
never received further instructions from the client, he allowed 
the time for appeal to lapse.  
¶9 
The client had no recollection of any communications 
from Attorney Woods except for the December, 1995 letter until 
after the appeal had been dismissed. The client stated that 
while he had told Attorney Woods he wanted to remain free on 
bond for the summer, he also said he wanted him to pursue the 
appeal to its conclusion, believing that if he prevailed, his 
sentence would be reduced from one year to six months. The 
referee concluded that Attorney Woods initially failed to 
cooperate with the Board’s investigation, in violation of SCR 
21.03(4)4 and 22.07(3),5 by not responding to requests for 
                     
4 SCR 21.03 provides, in pertinent part: General principles. 
 . . .  
No. 97-1385-D 
 
7 
information and that he made a misrepresentation in a disclosure 
to the Board, in violation of SCR 22.07(2),6 by his statements 
regarding his attempts to contact the client.  
¶10 The 
third 
matter 
concerned 
Attorney 
Woods’ 
representation of a client who retained him in a dispute with an 
auto dealership concerning a used car. In early October, 1994, 
Attorney Woods wrote the dealership stating the client’s 
position that the car had a diminished value by virtue of having 
                                                                  
(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. 
 . . .  
(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.  
6 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 recommendation to 
the board.  
No. 97-1385-D 
 
8 
been in an accident that had not been disclosed. The dealer 
denied any knowledge of a prior accident and stated that the 
client could have had the vehicle inspected by an expert before 
buying it. Attorney Woods told the client the dealer’s position, 
and when he stated that the next step was to file a small claims 
action, the client gave him permission to do so.  
¶11 Thereafter, Attorney Woods took no further action in 
the client’s matter. He did not respond to four telephone calls 
from her, and when he encountered her by chance, he told her he 
was taking care of it. After that encounter, the client heard 
nothing more from him. He did not respond to the client’s 
September, 1995 letter expressing dissatisfaction with his 
representation.  
¶12 After the client filed a grievance with the Board, 
Attorney Woods did not respond to a letter from the Board’s 
investigator asking for information concerning the matter. He 
also did not respond timely to a second request for information, 
although he ultimately responded some two weeks after the time 
specified for his response.  
¶13 The referee concluded that Attorney Woods failed to 
act with reasonable diligence on this client’s behalf, in 
violation of SCR 20:1.3, and did not comply promptly with her 
reasonable requests for information, in violation of SCR 
20:1.4(a). In addition, he did not cooperate with the Board’s 
investigation, in violation of SCR 22.07(2).  
¶14 In determining discipline to recommend for Attorney 
Woods’ misconduct, the referee considered as mitigating factors 
No. 97-1385-D 
 
9 
that Attorney Woods received no fee from the client in the used 
car matter and that the statute of limitations had not expired 
on that client’s claim, that the money he received from the 
client in the appellate matter was used for his actual out-of-
pocket expenses, and that there would have been no merit to 
filing an action on the client’s claim of mistreatment while in 
jail. The referee considered more significant, however, the 
following factors in aggravation of the seriousness of Attorney 
Woods’ misconduct and the discipline to be imposed for it. 
Attorney Woods engaged in multiple rule violations, he was 
disciplined twice previously, and he made a misrepresentation to 
the Board in the course of failing to cooperate with its 
investigation. On the basis of those mitigating and aggravating 
factors, the referee recommended a 60-day license suspension, 
the discipline to which the parties agreed in the course of the 
proceeding.  
¶15 We 
adopt 
the 
referee’s 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law and determine that the recommended 60-day 
license suspension is the appropriate discipline to impose for 
Attorney Woods’ professional misconduct. In addition, we require 
that he pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding, as the 
referee recommended.  
¶16 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Terrence J. Woods to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for 60 days, commencing 
April 7, 1998.  
¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Terrence J. Woods pay to the Board of Attorneys 
No. 97-1385-D 
 
10
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 Terrence J. Woods 
to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until 
further order of the court.  
¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Terrence J. Woods 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