Opinion ID: 1836956
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: client n.m.

Text: ¶ 22. The OLR alleged, and Collins now stipulates, that he was appointed to act as guardian of 16-year-old N.M. in Sauk County. Upon N.M.'s 18th birthday in November 1999, Collins was required to file his final guardian report detailing the funds collected and bills paid in the matter. When Collins' final report was overdue, the circuit court scheduled a hearing for December 1999. Collins failed to appear at that hearing even though he had notice of it. ¶ 23. By early 2000 when Collins still had not filed his final report regarding N.M.'s guardianship, the circuit court scheduled another hearing; again, Collins failed to appear. ¶ 24. On April 4, 2000, the circuit court sent Collins another letter. When his final report in the N.M. guardianship still had not been filed by May 3, 2000, the circuit court reported Collins' neglect of his duties as guardian in N.M.'s case to BAPR. Collins finally filed his report in late May of 2000. ¶ 25. On May 25, 2000, a BAPR investigator contacted Collins and asked him to respond to this grievance by June 14, 2000. Collins did not respond by that deadline. ¶ 26. BAPR staff then sent Collins a follow-up letter at the new address he had provided; Collins was given a new deadline of July 3, 2000, to respond to the grievance concerning the N.M. guardianship. Collins did not respond until August 2, 2000. ¶ 27. This course of conduct as alleged in the OLR's complaint resulted in Counts Seven and Eight to which Collins now stipulates. A. Count Seven. By failing to timely file a guardianship report and by failing to attend two hearings, Collins failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3. B. Count Eight. By failing to timely respond to requests for information by the BAPR, Collins failed to cooperate with the board and the administrator in the investigation, prosecution, and disposition of a grievance; and failed to fully and fairly disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct in violation of SCR 21.03(4) (1998) and SCR 22.07(2) (1998). ¶ 28. As noted, Collins has now stipulated to these eight counts of misconduct as alleged by the OLR in its complaint. He admits the facts and the misconduct as alleged, and he agrees that a 60-day suspension of his license to practice law in this state is an appropriate sanction for that misconduct. ¶ 29. We approve the stipulation and determine that the seriousness of Attorney Collins' misconduct warrants the suspension of his license to practice law for 60 days. We view Collins' actions as serious violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct governing lawyers in this state. Accordingly, ¶ 30. IT IS ORDERED that the license of Michael J. Collins to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, effective March 18, 2004. ¶ 31. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Michael J. Collins comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended.