Opinion ID: 2096988
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Count 15: SCR 22.03(6) and former SCR 20:8.4(f); Misrepresentation during the OLR investigation.

Text: ¶ 27 During the OLR investigation, Attorney Nunnery responded to the investigator's questions as follows:  I have indicated to [L.G.] that it was very unlikely that he was going to be able to succeed on the merits, and that the defendants will be able to prevail.  The county had threatened to file a Motion for Rule 11 in this case based upon [its] summary judgment motion and the expert opinion. I indicated to [L.G.] in a meeting that this was the case.  Rather than agree to a stipulated dismissal, the judge imposed an administrative dismissal which permits either party to re-open this case at any time. [There] was no judgment of dismissal entered. ¶ 28 The referee found that at no time did Attorney Nunnery advise L.G. that his case would not succeed but continued to assure him the case was continuing and everything was fine. Also, contrary to Attorney Nunnery's representation to the OLR, he did not provide L.G. with information regarding the defense motion for summary judgment or the meaning of Rule 11 sanctions. Further, the referee found the evidence contradicted Attorney Nunnery's assertion no judgment of dismissal had been entered. An order for a dismissal without prejudice was signed January 14, 2005. This evidence persuaded the referee that during the course of the OLR investigation, Attorney Nunnery willfully failed to provide relevant information, answer questions fully, and made misrepresentations.
¶ 29 A.S. retained Attorney Nunnery in February 2003 to represent her on a claim against her former employer, the United States Postal Service (USPS). This matter gave rise to counts 16 through 21.