Opinion ID: 1926356
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: client g.h.b.

Text: ¶ 6. G.H.B. retained Attorney Charles J. Hertel, a partner in the law firm in which Willihnganz was then an associate. G.H.B. retained Attorney Hertel to represent him on an August 20, 1998, municipal ordinance citation for trespassing. Attorney Hertel entered a plea of not guilty on G.H.B.'s behalf. ¶ 7. On September 15, 1998, G.H.B. executed an authorization form which allowed the law firm to appear on G.H.B.'s behalf in the trespass matter without G.H.B. being present. Attorney Hertel informed G.H.B., in correspondence dated September 11, 1998, which enclosed the Written Authorization to Appear as follows: You should be advised that we will take no action unless it is first authorized by you. ¶ 8. Trial in the trespass matter was scheduled for October 29, 1998; however, because Attorney Hertel was unavailable on that date, the case was assigned to Willihnganz. G.H.B. was not given written notice of the October 29, 1998, trial date. ¶ 9. Subsequently, Attorney Hertel instructed Willihnganz to contact G.H.B. to prepare for trial and to contest the trespass charges. On October 28, 1998, Hertel again instructed Willihnganz to contest the charges pending against G.H.B. On October 29, 1998, the scheduled trial date, Willihnganz appeared in court on G.H.B.'s behalf; G.H.B. was not present. Willihnganz entered a no contest plea on G.H.B.'s behalf; G.H.B. was found guilty and a forfeiture of $147.50 was assessed against him in the trespass matter. ¶ 10. Subsequently, Attorney Hertel asked Willihnganz about what had occurred at that court hearing. Willihnganz informed Attorney Hertel that G.H.B. had not appeared and as a consequence, he had been found guilty. ¶ 11. Attorney Hertel asked Willihnganz whether he had been in contact with G.H.B. Willihnganz responded that he had left a number of telephone messages for G.H.B., but the client had not returned the calls. G.H.B. was not given written notice by Willihnganz of the disposition in his trespass matter. ¶ 12. G.H.B. remained unaware of the forfeiture and subsequently, his driver's license was suspended for nonpayment of it. G.H.B. thereafter paid the forfeiture, plus a fee, to get his driver's license reinstated. ¶ 13. Willihnganz left the Hertel firm and accepted employment with a law firm in Brookfield, Wisconsin. Willihnganz's employment with the Brookfield firm, however, ended after his license to practice law in this state was suspended on June 6, 2001, for his failure to comply with mandatory CLE requirements. ¶ 14. By letter dated February 13, 2002, the OLR staff informed Willihnganz of a grievance inquiry concerning the G.H.B. matter. The OLR requested his written response by March 8, 2002, but Willihnganz failed to respond by that date. On March 11, 2002, the OLR staff sent a follow-up letter to Willihnganz by certified and first-class mail requesting a response by March 21, 2002. Willihnganz signed the certified mail receipt on March 12, 2002, but failed to respond as requested by March 21, 2002. ¶ 15. Subsequently, on May 14, 2002, the OLR staff forwarded Willihnganz's file to OLR's district committee for investigation. On June 25, 2002, the OLR staff received a response from Willihnganz dated June 10, 2002, which was forwarded to the district committee. In that correspondence Willihnganz stated that he had no relevant information to add to the matter and he had no recollection at all of the representation he had provided for G.H.B. ¶ 16. The OLR district committee investigator, despite writing to Willihnganz and leaving a phone message, and, later conducting an internet search in an attempt to locate Willihnganz, never heard from Willihnganz regarding this matter.