Opinion ID: 2039059
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: matter of j.v.

Text: ¶ 5. The complaint alleged and the referee found that J.V. retained Attorney Goldstein in 1995 to represent him in a divorce proceeding. The case proceeded to trial in the Milwaukee County Circuit Court, and the trial court denied any maintenance to J.V.'s former spouse and also provided that her pension was to be shared with J.V. She appealed. ¶ 6. Attorney Goldstein did not advise J.V. of the appeal for some three months. Attorney Goldstein eventually sent a letter to J.V. advising him of the appeal, and indicating that J.V. still owed him a substantial amount of money for legal fees incurred in the underlying proceeding. He asked J.V. to immediately pay him $500. ¶ 7. Attorney Goldstein later sent some additional correspondence to J.V., indicating he had received an appellate brief from opposing counsel and that it was necessary to file a responsive brief. This letter asked for legal fees in the amount of $1500 to file a responsive brief, and indicated that Attorney Goldstein would do nothing until arrangements were made for payment of old fees, plus new fees necessary to cover the cost of an appeal. ¶ 8. On March 14, 2000, the court of appeals issued an order directing J.V. to file his appellate brief within five days. On or about March 16, 2000, Attorney Goldstein sent another letter to J.V., again advising J.V. that unless arrangements were made with respect to past-due and prospective fees, Attorney Goldstein would do nothing further for J.V. On April 4, 2000, the court of appeals issued an order providing that, unless a brief was filed within ten days, the trial court judgment would be summarily reversed. ¶ 9. Attorney Goldstein did not file a brief on behalf of J.V. in the court of appeals. On December 5, 2000, the court of appeals summarily reversed the original divorce judgment. [5] ¶ 10. The referee found that Attorney Goldstein's only communications with J.V. during the course of the appeal were the three letters mentioned above. He found further that Attorney Goldstein never provided J.V. with copies of any of the notices or orders received from the court of appeals. The referee also found that Attorney Goldstein did not move to withdraw from the circuit court case, and did not advise the court of appeals that he was not representing J.V. on appeal. The referee found further that Attorney Goldstein did not clearly explain to J.V. the consequences of failing to timely file a responsive brief in the court of appeals. ¶ 11. The referee thus concluded that Attorney Goldstein failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3. In addition, by failing to advise his client of the orders issued by the court of appeals, and by failing to advise him of the consequences of not filing a brief in the court of appeals, the referee concluded that Attorney Goldstein failed to keep his client reasonably informed of the status of the matter, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a). Finally, the referee concluded that by failing to notify and advise the client of the specifics of the appeal, Attorney Goldstein failed to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make an informed decision regarding his representation, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(b). ¶ 12. Attorney Goldstein challenges these conclusions on appeal. He argues that even after receiving notice of the appeal, J.V. opted to do nothing, such that he suffered no real prejudice. In addition, Attorney Goldstein contends that an appeal in a family law matter is effectively a separate action from the trial court proceeding, so that he did not consider himself to be representing J.V. on appeal, because J.V. did not separately retain him for that purpose. As such, he suggests he could not have violated a duty to communicate with J.V. ¶ 13. The referee considered these defenses in the evidentiary hearing, but was not persuaded. The referee explained: . . . there are a number of actions that Goldstein should reasonably have taken after the appeal was filed. First, he should have advised [J.V.] of the appeal in a more timely manner. Having learned of the appeal in August of 1999, Goldstein had an obligation to advise [J.V.] of the appeal prior to Goldstein's initial correspondence in relation to the appeal which was sent to [J.V.] on November 4, 1999. Goldstein should have provided [J.V.] with copies of the notice of appeal and the orders issued by the court of appeals in relation to briefing. Goldstein should have advised [J.V.] of the consequences of failing to file a responsive brief in the appeal. Further, Goldstein should have advised the court of appeals that he was not representing [J.V.] in the appeal. A copy of such notice should have been provided to [J.V.] Report and Recommendation at 14. ¶ 14. The referee specifically discussed the testimony of Goldstein's expert witness, Attorney Greg Herman, regarding Attorney Goldstein's contention that he had no legal duty to J.V. because he did not really represent him on appeal. The referee noted that Attorney Herman testified that an attorney who represents a client in a family matter at the trial court level does not automatically become responsible for any appeal in the case. However, Attorney Herman testified that the more appropriate procedure would have been to advise the client of a deadline by which an agreement regarding legal fees and representation would need to be in place. If no such agreement were reached, then Attorney Goldstein would have had no responsibility for the appeal. Attorney Herman also acknowledged that it would have been appropriate for Attorney Goldstein to advise the court of appeals that he was not involved in the appeal. ¶ 15. The referee ultimately decided that it was unnecessary to determine whether or not Goldstein represented [the client] in the appeal. He explained: I am more concerned with the fact that Goldstein did not advise [J.V.] of the appeal for a period of approximately three months. Goldstein did not advise [J.V.] of the consequences of failing to reply to the appeal. Goldstein did not provide [J.V.] with copies of the Notice of Appeal and the orders issued by the Court of Appeals. Regardless of whether [J.V.] paid appellate legal fees or failed to respond to correspondence from Goldstein, Goldstein had the obligation to provide timely notice to [J.V.] of the appeal and the consequences of failing to reply to the appeal. He did not do so. Report and Recommendation at 15. The referee did consider the fact that Goldstein did advise [the client], in three separate letters, of the appeal and that [the client] had not paid requested fees in relation to the trial court matter. However, the referee was of the opinion that the admitted allegations of the complaint, together with Goldstein's testimony, constituted clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence that Goldstein violated SCR 20:1.1(a) and 20:1.4(b). We agree that Attorney Goldstein's actions in this regard failed to meet the standards required by these supreme court rules.