Title: Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility v. James H. Martin
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1999AP000377-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: June 30, 1999

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
99-0377-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against James H. Martin, Attorney at Law. 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional  
Responsibility,  
 
Complainant, 
 
v. 
James H. Martin,  
 
Respondent.  
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MARTIN 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
June 30, 1999 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating:  
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
No. 
99-0377-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. 99-0377-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against James H. Martin, Attorney at Law. 
Board of Attorneys Professional 
Responsibility, 
 
 
Complainant, 
 
v.  
James H. Martin,  
 
 
Respondent. 
FILED 
 
JUN 30, 1999 
 
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 James H. Martin to practice 
law in Wisconsin be suspended for six months as discipline for 
professional misconduct. That misconduct consisted of his failure 
to respond to numerous requests for information from the district 
professional responsibility committee and from the Board of 
Attorneys Professional Responsibility (Board) in respect to his 
conduct in several matters, his failure to act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in three client matters and failure to 
keep a client in one of them informed of the status of the matter 
No. 
99-0377-D 
 
2 
and return the retainer he had been paid, and his failure to 
respond to three orders from the Court of Appeals requiring a 
response to the motion filed by his client for an extension of 
time to file a notice of intent to pursue postconviction relief.  
¶2 
We determine that the seriousness of Attorney Martin’s 
professional misconduct warrants the six-month license suspension 
recommended by the referee. In two matters, he abandoned his 
clients 
without 
taking 
necessary 
action 
to 
protect 
their 
interests, and in one of them he ignored repeated orders from the 
appellate court to respond to his client’s claim that he had 
failed to act on his behalf. A six-month license suspension is 
warranted 
not 
only 
to 
impress 
upon 
Attorney 
Martin 
the 
seriousness of his repeated breach of professional responsibility 
but also to ensure that his license to practice law will not be 
reinstated until he has satisfied the court that he has the 
requisite understanding of his professional obligations to be 
licensed to represent others in our legal system.  
¶3 
Attorney Martin was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1981 and practiced in Janesville. At some time in 
1997 he closed his practice without notice to his clients and 
relocated to Milwaukee, where he is not engaged in the practice 
of law. He currently is suspended from practice for failure to 
pay State Bar dues and for failure to comply with continuing 
No. 
99-0377-D 
 
3 
legal education requirements. He has not been the subject of a 
prior disciplinary proceeding.  
¶4 
When Attorney Martin did not file an answer to the 
Board’s complaint, the referee, Attorney David R. Friedman, held 
a hearing on the Board’s motion for default. The attorney 
appearing for Attorney Martin stipulated to the allegations of 
the complaint, with the amendment of one of them in respect to 
the amount of retainer paid by one of Attorney Martin’s clients, 
and the referee made findings accordingly.  
¶5 
The Board had been notified of Attorney Martin’s 
apparent abandonment of his law practice in July 1997, after he 
did not appear at several clients’ court proceedings. Attorney 
Martin did not respond to several letters from the Board and from 
the district professional responsibility committee requesting a 
response to the possible misconduct involved in his abandonment 
of the practice. The Board was notified by counsel for Attorney 
Martin in November 1998 that he was no longer practicing law and 
had relocated to the Milwaukee area and was pursuing other 
interests. The referee concluded that Attorney Martin’s failure 
to respond to letters of inquiry from the Board and from the 
district committee constituted a failure to cooperate with the 
No. 
99-0377-D 
 
4 
Board’s investigation, in violation of SCR 21.03(4)1 and 22.07(2) 
and (3).2  
¶6 
The referee made findings and conclusions in respect to 
three other matters. In 1995 Attorney Martin was retained by a 
client to file for bankruptcy, for which she paid him a $450 
retainer. Attorney Martin did not file the bankruptcy, did not 
return or account to the client for the retainer he had received, 
                     
1  
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.   
2  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. 
99-0377-D 
 
5 
and did not respond to the client’s numerous telephone calls. In 
August 1997 the client went to Attorney Martin’s office and found 
it had been vacated. Attorney Martin did not respond to several 
letters from the Board and from the district professional 
responsibility committee in respect to this client’s grievance. 
The referee concluded that Attorney Martin failed to act with 
reasonable diligence in this client’s matter, in violation of SCR 
20:1.3,3 failed to provide the client accurate information 
regarding the case and keep her reasonably informed of its 
status, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a),4 failed to return the 
unearned retainer he had received in the matter, in violation of 
SCR 20:1.16(d),5 and failed to cooperate with the Board’s 
investigation, in violation of SCR 21.03(4) and 22.07(2) and (3).  
                     
3  SCR 20:1.3 provides: Diligence 
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in representing a client.   
4  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.  
5  SCR 20:1.16 provides, in pertinent part: Declining or 
terminating representation 
 . . .  
No. 
99-0377-D 
 
6 
¶7 
In June 1997 a client Attorney Martin had represented 
in a criminal matter filed in the Court of Appeals a motion for 
an extension of time to file a notice of intent to pursue 
postconviction relief in which he alleged that Attorney Martin 
had failed to file that notice of intent. The Court of Appeals 
issued three orders requesting Attorney Martin to provide a 
response to the client’s motion, but Attorney Martin did not 
respond to any of them. The third order, sent by certified mail, 
was returned to the court “unclaimed,” and the court’s further 
attempts to locate him were unsuccessful, as his telephone number 
was neither published nor listed, and the telephone had been 
disconnected. Attorney Martin did not respond to letters from the 
 Board and the district committee requesting information in 
respect to this matter. The referee concluded that Attorney 
Martin failed to act with reasonable diligence in the matter, in 
violation of SCR 20:1.3, failed to respond to orders from the 
Court of Appeals, in violation of SCR 20:3.4(c),6 and failed to 
                                                                  
(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.  
6  SCR 20:3.4 provides, in pertinent part: Fairness to 
opposing party and counsel 
No. 
99-0377-D 
 
7 
cooperate in the Board’s investigation, in violation of SCR 
21.03(4) and 22.07(2) and (3).  
¶8 
In February 1997 Attorney Martin was retained to handle 
a divorce action. In June 1997 he told the client that a hearing 
was scheduled for the end of June and said he had closed his 
office and that if the client needed to speak to him, he should 
telephone him at his home. Attorney Martin appeared with the 
client at the hearing, and the court granted a judgment of 
divorce. When the court subsequently notified the client that the 
findings of facts, conclusions of law and judgment had not yet 
been filed, the client retained other counsel, who prepared and 
filed the necessary papers. Attorney Martin did not respond to 
letters from the Board seeking information in response to the 
client’s grievance in this matter. The referee concluded that 
Attorney Martin failed to act with reasonable diligence in the 
matter, in violation of SCR 20:1.3, and failed to cooperate in 
the Board’s investigation, in violation of SCR 21.03(4) and 
22.07(2) and (3).  
¶9 
As discipline for that professional misconduct, the 
referee recommended the six-month license suspension that the 
                                                                  
A lawyer shall not:  
 . . .  
No. 
99-0377-D 
 
8 
Board had urged. The referee also recommended that Attorney 
Martin be required to pay the costs of this proceeding, 
notwithstanding the statement of his attorney that he is without 
funds sufficient to pay the costs.  
¶10 We adopt the referee’s findings of fact and conclusions 
of law and determine that the recommended six-month license 
suspension is the appropriate discipline to impose for Attorney 
Martin’s professional misconduct. While the referee did not 
address the issue of restitution of the bankruptcy client’s $450 
retainer, counsel for Attorney Martin had asked the referee not 
to recommend that he be required to make any payments other than 
repayment of the retainer to the bankruptcy client. It is 
appropriate that Attorney Martin be required to make restitution 
to that client.  
¶11 IT IS ORDERED that the license of James H. Martin to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for six months, effective 
the 
date 
of 
this 
order, 
as 
discipline 
for 
professional 
misconduct.  
¶12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order James H. Martin make restitution as set forth in 
this opinion.  
                                                                  
(c) knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a 
tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that 
no valid obligation exists.  
No. 
99-0377-D 
 
9 
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, James H. Martin 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 James H. Martin to 
practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further 
order of the court.  
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that James H. Martin 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