Opinion ID: 2039059
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: MATTER OF J.S. and G.M.

Text: ¶ 35. The complaint alleged and the referee found that J.S. retained Attorney Goldstein in October 2001 to represent her son, G.M., who had been charged in Outagamie county with recklessly endangering the safety of a minor by using a dangerous weapon. ¶ 36. When Attorney Goldstein was retained, G.M. was represented by a public defender. However, his mother wanted G.M. to have private counsel. Indeed, the referee found that J.S. specifically told Attorney Goldstein that she did not want her son to be represented by a public defender in any upcoming court appearances. Attorney Goldstein requested a $1500 retainer to undertake this representation. ¶ 37. A preliminary hearing was scheduled for October 9, 2001. A few days prior to the scheduled hearing J.S. paid Attorney Goldstein $800 of the requested $1500 retainer, which Goldstein accepted. Goldstein advised J.S. that, due to a conflict, he would not be available for the October 9, 2001, hearing, but he assured J.S. that he would arrange for another private attorney to represent her son at the hearing. ¶ 38. The day before the scheduled hearing Attorney Goldstein sent a letter to G.M.'s public defender, John Zadrazel, requesting that Attorney Zadrazel represent G.M. at the October 9, 2001, hearing. The letter stated that Attorney Goldstein had not been paid a retainer fee, and stated he might be retained in the future. The letter requested that Attorney Zadrazel continue to represent G.M. until Attorney Goldstein received payment. ¶ 39. Attorney Zadrazel appeared on G.M.'s behalf at the preliminary hearing. When J.S. learned of this she fired Attorney Goldstein and requested the return of her deposit. Goldstein returned $600 of the $800 he had received. ¶ 40. The referee observed: Goldstein knew [G.M. and J.S.] hired him because they wanted [G.M.] represented by a private attorney. While Goldstein copied his letter of October 8, 2001, to [G.M.], such action was insufficient given the hearing was on October 9, 2001. I am also satisfied that [J.S.] was led to believe that Goldstein did represent [G.M.] after she paid the $800.00. Report and Recommendation at 19. ¶ 41. Thus, the referee found that by failing to inform G.M. or J.S. that he had arranged for a public defender to appear on behalf of G.M., Attorney Goldstein failed to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit a client to make an informed decision regarding representation, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(b). ¶ 42. On appeal Attorney Goldstein challenges this conclusion. From his perspective, he had not been fully retained because he had received only a portion of the requested retainer. ¶ 43. As the referee observed, this incident exemplifies the problems that may develop when lawyers fail to put fee arrangements in writing, or to adequately explain such arrangements to their clients. ¶ 44. Attorney Goldstein accepted a partial payment for a requested retainer. In the absence of a written agreement specifying the effect of this action, the client and his family were placed in a difficult predicament. The client and his family believed they had hired an attorney and were not clearly told otherwise. However, when the retainer was not paid in full, Attorney Goldstein then took the position that he was not representing G.M. Indeed, the referee used Attorney Goldstein's letter to the state public defender in the G.M. matter as an example of the confusion that results from Goldstein's policies. ¶ 45. In the letter, Attorney Goldstein indicates that he will eventually represent G.M., but he then proceeds to request information about the case. Also, after J.S. fired Goldstein he wrote a letter to the state public defender indicating he was no longer representing [G.M.]. The record supports the referee's conclusion that by failing to explain the consequences of a partial payment of a retainer to his clients, Attorney Goldstein violated SCR 20:1.4(b).