Opinion ID: 2039059
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: matter of c.k.

Text: ¶ 46. On or about September 24, 1999, C.K.'s father, retained Attorney Goldstein to represent C.K., who was incarcerated at the Waupun Correctional Institution following parole revocation. C.K.'s father paid Attorney Goldstein a $1000 retainer. There was no written fee agreement. ¶ 47. C.K.'s father testified that he believed the retainer would cover research, investigation, and the pursuit of available remedies on behalf of his son. Attorney Goldstein testified that he believed the $1000 retainer was only for purposes of reviewing the matter and researching possible remedies for the client. ¶ 48. It is undisputed that Attorney Goldstein did research the background and history of the case, and communicated with the client's probation officer. He also wrote to the client several times, asking C.K. to telephone him as soon as possible. ¶ 49. When he received no response to these communications, Attorney Goldstein wrote to the client's father, asking him to contact Attorney Goldstein to arrange a meeting to discuss the results of his preliminary research. Neither C.K. nor his father ever replied to Attorney Goldstein's letters. ¶ 50. Nonetheless, on or about December 4, 2000, the client filed a grievance with the OLR, complaining that he had not heard from his attorney for over a year. He also asserted that the retainer funds of $1000 paid to Goldstein were to cover not only research and investigation, but also the pursuit of available remedies on his behalf. ¶ 51. The complaint filed in this matter charged that Attorney Goldstein violated his duty of communication by his handling of this matter. However, the referee disagreed, concluding that the OLR had not succeeded in showing that Attorney Goldstein had failed to explain the status of the matter to his client to the extent reasonably necessary to permit his client to make informed decisions regarding the representation. ¶ 52. With respect to the fee arrangement, however, the referee stated: Goldstein should have adequately discussed his fees with the [clients] or placed his fee agreement with the [clients] in writing to avoid any misunderstandings. The referee agreed with Attorney Goldstein's assertion that it was unreasonable for the clients to expect a $1000 retainer in a serious felony case to cover not only investigation and review by a lawyer, but also additional legal proceedings and pursuit of additional remedies. However, the referee did conclude that by failing to clearly articulate or reduce to writing what services his fee covered, Attorney Goldstein failed to communicate the basis or rate to the client within a reasonable time after the commencement of the representation, in violation of SCR 20:1.5(b). ¶ 53. On appeal, Goldstein admits that there was no written fee agreement, but renews his contention that it was unreasonable for the clients to think $1000 would cover additional legal proceedings. He reminds the court that the clients never responded to his communications. ¶ 54. As noted, Attorney Goldstein prevailed on the allegation that he failed to explain the status of the matter to these clients. This conclusion reflects the referee's recognition of the fact that the clients neither contacted Attorney Goldstein nor responded to his communications. However, the record supports the referee's conclusions with respect to the violation of SCR 20:1.5(b). While the clients' expectations with respect to what their retainer would cover were unreasonable, it was incumbent upon the lawyer to clarify these expectations. ¶ 55. We turn to the question of the appropriate discipline for Attorney Goldstein's misconduct. The OLR contends that Attorney Goldstein's license should be suspended for a period of six months, and has cited a number of cases to support that position. Attorney Goldstein contends that a public reprimand or, at most, a two-month suspension, is warranted here. After careful analysis and thorough discussion Referee Winiarski recommended this court suspend Attorney Goldstein's license to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of four months, and recommended further that Attorney Goldstein pay the costs of this proceeding. ¶ 56. Attorney Goldstein has been in practice since 1951. His reputation is clearly that of an experienced, prepared and trustworthy attorney. The court is also mindful that Attorney Goldstein has recently had some serious medical issues to contend with. The referee emphasized that there was no malice involved in the incidents, and acknowledged the challenges inherent in representing criminal defendants. He also concluded, and we agree, that some of the infractions described herein were fairly minor. ¶ 57. However, he noted further, and again we agree, that the J.V. matter is quite serious. In addition, we are mindful that the complaint filed against Attorney Goldstein implicated some six separate client matters, thus evidencing disturbing patterns followed by Goldstein in the handling of cases. ¶ 58. We commend Referee Winiarski for his careful consideration of the evidence and mitigating circumstances presented in this matter, and for his thorough and well-prepared report and recommendation. We agree that the referee's findings evidence a pattern of misconduct with respect to failure to establish adequate fee arrangements and, to a lesser extent, with respect to the failure to complete cases or communicate adequately with clients. We adopt the referee's findings and conclusions in this matter, and we accept the referee's recommendation that a four-month suspension of Attorney Goldstein's license to practice law is appropriate discipline under the circumstances of this case. We agree that Attorney Goldstein should be required to pay the costs of this disciplinary proceeding. ¶ 59. Upon the foregoing reasons, ¶ 60. IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Russell Goldstein to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of four months, and until reinstated by this court, effective August 4, 2004. ¶ 61. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Russell Goldstein comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. ¶ 62. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order Attorney Russell Goldstein shall pay to the Office of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding in the amount of $11,551.29. If the costs are not paid within the time specified, and absent a showing to this court of his inability to pay the costs within that time, the license of Attorney Russell Goldstein to practice law in Wisconsin shall be suspended until further order of the court.