Opinion ID: 1792167
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The T.V. Client Matter

Text: ¶ 22. Counts 8 and 9 alleged that Attorney Scanlan practiced law during a time that his law license was administratively suspended, giving rise to violations of SCR 10.03(6), [8] SCR 20:8.4(f), [9] and SCR 22.03(2). In September 2002 T.V. was charged with misdemeanor bail jumping and on September 23, 2002, Attorney Scanlan entered a notice of appearance on T.V.'s behalf. ¶ 23. The referee determined, based on agreed upon facts, that due to Attorney Scanlan's failure to pay dues and assessments, his license was suspended on November 1, 2002. During his period of suspension, on November 6, 2002, Attorney Scanlan appeared in court and entered a guilty plea on behalf of his client, T.V. It is undisputed that Attorney Scanlan had not received a letter notifying him of his suspension at that time. After paying his dues and assessments, Attorney Scanlan's license was reinstated on November 20, 2002. Attorney Scanlan did not respond to two investigative requests regarding this matter, but responded in April 2003 while seeking reinstatement from temporary suspension. ¶ 24. The referee concluded as to Count 8 that the OLR failed to meet its burden of proof for the same reasons it failed to meet its Burden of Proof in count #2 and therefore, dismissed Count 8. [10] ¶ 25. As to Count 9, because Attorney Scanlan failed to provide information regarding the grievance for over three months after a response was due, the referee found that Attorney Scanlan violated SCR 22.03(2), requiring timely disclosure.