Opinion ID: 2222122
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: leonard brumm collection matters counts eleven through fifteen

Text: ¶ 31. The OLR complaint alleges, and Sherry now stipulates, that Leonard Brumm who owned a remodeling business, Lake States, Inc., retained Sherry to represent him in several collection matters. In 1997 Brumm asked Sherry to commence a collection action to collect $4400 that an individual owed Brumm for repairs and remodeling. Sherry filed that lawsuit on behalf of Brumm's business on October 22, 1997. ¶ 32. Sherry and the defendant's counsel then reached a tentative agreement to settle that lawsuit for $1350. Sherry, however, never communicated that settlement to Brumm. ¶ 33. Subsequently, the circuit court dismissed that collection action on September 3, 1998, on the representation that the case had been settled. Sherry did not inform Brumm that the lawsuit had been dismissed. In fact, the settlement had never been consummated because Sherry had not prepared the settlement documents. Brumm repeatedly attempted to contact Sherry to determine the status of that lawsuit and, after a series of unsuccessful attempts, Brumm hired another attorney in June 2001. That second attorney then discovered that the lawsuit had been dismissed. ¶ 34. Brumm had also retained Sherry in late 1997 to foreclose on a $1850 construction lien. Thereafter Brumm repeatedly attempted to contact Sherry about the status of that foreclosure action but Sherry failed to respond or take any action to foreclose the construction lien. ¶ 35. In March 2001 Brumm retained Sherry to collect a $12,500 judgment that Brumm's business had obtained in an arbitration proceeding. Brumm gave Sherry a $250 check to commence execution on that judgment; the sheriff's department, however, has no record of any attempted execution on the judgment. ¶ 36. Sherry later informed Brumm that he would conduct a supplemental examination of that judgment debtor but Sherry never conducted that supplemental examination. Brumm repeatedly attempted to obtain a status report from Sherry about the $12,500 collection matter but without success. ¶ 37. This course of conduct led to Counts Eleven through Fifteen in the OLR complaint to which Sherry now stipulates.
¶ 38. By failing to communicate the offer of settlement to Brumm in the 1997 collection matter, Sherry failed to inform his client of all offers of settlement and abide by a client's decision whether to accept the offer of settlement of a matter, in violation of SCR 20:1.2(a).
¶ 39. By failing to take appropriate steps toward finalizing the settlement, including failing to reduce the settlement agreement to writing in the 1998 matter after the court dismissed the case upon assurances of counsel that it had been settled, Sherry failed to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3.
¶ 40. By failing to perform work to foreclose on Lake State's construction lien, Sherry failed to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3.
¶ 41. By failing to collect on Lake State's $12,500 judgment, Sherry failed to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3.
¶ 42. By not informing Brumm that the 1997 collection matter had been dismissed and by failing to respond to Brumm's repeated correspondence requesting status reports, Sherry failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of the matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a).