Opinion ID: 2225485
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Client B.J.

Text: ¶ 17 B.J. was sentenced to 25 years in prison in 1998 and all direct appeal options had been exhausted. In November 2002 B.J. retained Attorney Boyd to prepare and file a post-conviction motion on his behalf and paid Attorney Boyd a retainer fee. Attorney Boyd filed the motion and the circuit court issued a written decision in October 2004 denying the motion. Attorney Boyd immediately sent the court's decision to B.J. and advised him the next step would be to file an appeal. However, the record reflects that Attorney Boyd did not inform B.J. about the timelines for any appeal and the procedures for filing the appeal so as to protect his appellate rights. ¶ 18 B.J. asked Attorney Boyd to work with him concerning Attorney Boyd's request for additional fees for the appeal. A notice of appeal was not filed. Attorney Boyd never told B.J. she was terminating her representation. On or about January 31, 2005, after the appeal deadline had passed, B.J. paid Attorney Boyd a $2,000 retainer. At a meeting on April 26, 2005, Attorney Boyd informed B.J. the time for filing an appeal had passed. ¶ 19 B.J. and Attorney Boyd subsequently agreed the additional $2,000 attorney fee would be used to pay Attorney Boyd to investigate whether the sentencing court had unconstitutionally applied a sentence enhancer and to seek modification of the sentence. Thereafter, B.J. sent Attorney Boyd several letters regarding the matter. Attorney Boyd failed to respond to many of B.J.'s letters. Attorney Boyd did not file any motion and did not provide B.J. with any time records regarding her work on his matters. B.J. eventually filed his own motion, pro se, with the court addressing both the enhancer statute and sentence credit issues. ¶ 20 With regard to Attorney Boyd's representation of B.J., the referee found: Count 9. By failing to investigate the sentence enhancer issue after accepting a retainer to do so, Attorney Boyd failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in her representation of B.J., in violation of SCR 20:1.3. Count 10. By failing to respond to B.J.'s letters requesting case information, Attorney Boyd failed to keep her client reasonably informed as to the status of his matter and to promptly comply with the client's reasonable requests for case information in violation of former SCR 20:1.4(a) (effective through June 30, 2007). Count 11. By failing to give B.J. written notice of his statutory appellate deadline and by failing to advise B.J. she was terminating her representation after the court's denial of B.J.'s post-conviction motion, Attorney Boyd violated former SCR 20:1.4(b). [7] ¶ 21 The referee discussed the terms of the stipulation. He also discussed Attorney Boyd's previous disciplinary history as well as the fact that another, separate disciplinary proceeding was also pending against Attorney Boyd. The referee observed that the conduct of Attorney Boyd is serious and repetitive. ¶ 22 Ultimately, the referee recommended this court impose a 12-month suspension of Attorney Boyd's law license [8] to run consecutive to any other disciplinary suspension, order Attorney Boyd to pay restitution and the costs of this proceeding, as well as require Attorney Boyd to complete 20 credits of Wisconsinapproved CLE ethics courses. ¶ 23 Specifically, the referee recommended the court direct Attorney Boyd to pay restitution, as follows:  Client R.R.: $3,000 with legal interest at the rate of 5 percent from November 5, 2005, until paid.  Client M.D.: $4,800 with legal interest at the rate of 5 percent from March 28, 2007, until paid.  Client B.J.: $1,500 with legal interest at the rate of 5 percent from January 31, 2004, until paid. ¶ 24 We agree with the referee's recommendations regarding a 12-month suspension to run consecutive to existing disciplinary suspensions, restitution, additional ethics coursework, and payment of the costs of this proceeding. [9] ¶ 25 However, the question whether G.W. should have received restitution warrants further discussion. As noted, the referee did not recommend restitution be paid to G.W. and G.W. has strongly objected to this omission. The OLR has stated it is not unsympathetic to G.W.'s request for restitution and the question gave this court pause, as well. On November 10, 2009, this court issued an order directing the parties to show cause why the stipulation did not provide for restitution to G.W. Attorney Boyd filed no response. The OLR filed a response on November 23, 2009. ¶ 26 The OLR formulated a policy on restitution in 2007. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Nussberger, 2009 WI 103, ¶ 20, 321 Wis.2d 576, 775 N.W.2d 525. Its policy is to seek restitution only under the following circumstances:  The grievant's or respondent's rights in a collateral proceeding will not likely be prejudiced;  The funds to be restored do not constitute incidental or consequential damages;  The funds to be restored were in the respondent lawyer's direct control; and  There is a reasonably ascertainable amount. ¶ 27 The OLR states that although G.W. did pay a flat fee of $1,800 to Attorney Boyd, Attorney Boyd was able to produce timesheets reflecting 25.2 hours of work which, at a customary hourly rate, would have surpassed the flat fee that was actually paid. As such, OLR concluded that prosecution for an unreasonable fee was not authorized. The OLR also took note of the fact that prior to filing the disciplinary complaint [G.W.] had not filed an application for reimbursement with the State Bar of Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection. ¶ 28 The fact that G.W. did not file an application for reimbursement with the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection does not determine whether G.W. was entitled to restitution. However, SCR Chapter 12, which governs the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection, does provide some guidance as to what constitutes a reimbursable loss. It requires, inter alia, that the loss was caused by the dishonest conduct of an attorney ... (emphasis added). See SCR 12.045(7)(a)(1). Similarly, SCR 21.16(2m) involving discipline for professional misconduct, provides that restitution may be ordered when a client's money or property was  misappropriated or misapplied ... (emphasis added). See SCR 21.16(2m)(a)1. Here, G.W. paid $1,800 for very substandardindeed incompetentlegal work. While G.W. may have grounds for a civil action against Attorney Boyd, it appears that the $1,800 fee does not meet the criteria the OLR uses to assess whether restitution is reasonable. ¶ 29 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Joan M. Boyd to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 12 months, to run consecutive to existing disciplinary suspensions already imposed by this court. ¶ 30 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent she has not yet done so, Joan M. Boyd shall comply with SCR 22.26 regarding the duties of a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. ¶ 31 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Joan M. Boyd pay restitution plus interest at the legal rate. See Wis. Stat. § 138.04. Restitution shall be paid as follows: A. Client R.R.: $3,000 with legal interest at the rate of 5 percent from November 5, 2005, until paid. B. Client M.D.: $4,800 with legal interest at the rate of 5 percent from March 28, 2007, until paid. C. Client B.J.: $1,500 with legal interest at the rate of 5 percent from January 31, 2004, until paid. If restitution is not paid within 60 days of the date of this order, Joan M. Boyd's license shall remain suspended until further order of the court. ¶ 32 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Joan M. Boyd is directed to obtain advance approval of and complete 20 credits of Wisconsinapproved continuing legal education ethics courses prior to seeking reinstatement. ¶ 33 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 90 days of the date of this order Joan M. Boyd pay to the Office of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding. If the costs are not paid within the time specified and absent a showing to this court of her inability to pay the costs within that time, Joan M. Boyd's license to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of the court. ¶ 34 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution is to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of Lawyer Regulation. ¶ 35 ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J. (dissenting in part). I agree with the imposition of a 12-month suspension and the ordered restitution. I write separately, however, because I would also order restitution in the amount of $1,800 to Attorney Boyd's client, G.W.