Opinion ID: 2225485
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Client G.W.

Text: ¶ 12 G.W. was sentenced to 25 years in prison by the Milwaukee County circuit court. In late 2006 he hired Attorney Boyd to handle a post-conviction motion. G.W. paid Attorney Boyd a retainer fee of $1,800. Attorney Boyd prepared the requested motion and legal memorandum and sent them to G.W. for review before filing. G.W. reviewed the documents and wrote to Attorney Boyd informing her that the motion appeared to be legally defective because it did not include all the grounds for possible relief they had discussed, and it failed to allege that post-conviction counsel was ineffective in the original appeal. Attorney Boyd did not respond to G.W. and subsequently filed the pleadings as originally prepared. ¶ 13 In May 2007 the court denied the motion based on the same rationale cited by G.W. Attorney Boyd advised G.W. of the ruling, that the ruling could be appealed, and that her fee for the appeal would be $2,000. G.W. agreed to the appeal, and Attorney Boyd filed a timely notice of appeal with the court of appeals. However, Attorney Boyd did not pay the required filing fee. Thereafter, G.W. advised Attorney Boyd he was terminating her representation and he would pursue the matter pro se. ¶ 14 Regarding Attorney Boyd's representation of G.W., the referee concluded: Count 7. By failing to consider the input and wishes of G.W. and, instead, filing an unrevised motion that turned out to be legally inadequate and ineffective, Attorney Boyd did not provide competent representation to G.W., thereby violating SCR 20:1.1. Count 8. Attorney Boyd violated former SCR 20:1.2(a) [6] by not considering G.W.'s decisions concerning the objectives of the representation and by failing to consult with G.W. as to how the representation would be pursued. ¶ 15 On August 5, 2009, G.W. filed a motion in this court objecting to the stipulation between Attorney Boyd and the OLR. In particular, he was concerned the stipulation did not contemplate restitution to him. He also asked the court to reinstate certain post-conviction rights. ¶ 16 On August 12, 2009, the OLR filed a response to G.W.'s motion explaining that G.W. has no standing to bring this motion. The OLR also explained why it did not seek restitution in the G.W. matter. G.W. filed a reply on August 21, 2009, reiterating his requests for relief.