Opinion ID: 2222122
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: gall divorce actioncounts eighteen through twenty-one

Text: ¶ 51. The OLR complaint alleges, and Sherry now stipulates, that in December 2000 Jessica Gall retained Sherry to represent her in a divorce action. She paid Sherry a retainer of $850. ¶ 52. The initial hearing in that divorce action was held on March 21, 2001; thereafter, Sherry failed to perform any work on that divorce action. He also did not return Gall's phone calls and failed to keep her informed about the divorce action. He did, however, have five telephone conversations with Jessica Gall, some of which occurred after Sherry's law license had been administratively suspended on June 6, 2001, due to his noncompliance with CLE requirements. ¶ 53. Specifically, in August and September 2001, Sherry provided legal advice to Gall over the telephone concerning her divorce action; however, he never informed her that his law license had been suspended. ¶ 54. In October 2001 Sherry informed Gall that he could not complete her divorce action because of depression. Sherry agreed to refund to Gall $425 of her retainer fee by October 26, 2001, but he failed to do so. ¶ 55. This course of conduct led to Counts Eighteen through Twenty-One in the OLR's complaint to which Sherry has now stipulated.
¶ 56. By failing to take action in Gall's divorce after the initial hearing on March 21, 2001, Sherry failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3.
¶ 57. By failing to respond to Gall's attempts to communicate with him regarding the status of the divorce action, Sherry failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a).
¶ 58. By failing to refund Gall $425 of her retainer fee, as promised, Sherry failed to surrender papers and property to which a client was entitled and refund any advance payment of fees that had not been earned, in violation of SCR 20:1.16(d).
¶ 59. By providing legal advice to Gall while his license was suspended, Sherry violated a statute, supreme court rule, supreme court order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of lawyers, SCR 31.10, which prohibits the practice of law while the lawyer's state bar membership is suspended for non-compliance with CLE requirements, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(f). ¶ 60. As noted, Sherry has now stipulated to these 21 counts of misconduct as alleged by the OLR in its complaint. He admits the facts and the misconduct as alleged and agrees with the OLR that a nine-month suspension of his license to practice law in this state is an appropriate sanction for that misconduct. He also agrees with the OLR that he should make restitution to Mohamad Khan in the amount of $102, and to Jessica Gall in the amount of $450. ¶ 61. We approve the stipulation and determine that the seriousness of Attorney Sherry's misconduct warrants the suspension of his license to practice law for nine months. Sherry's admitted acts are serious violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct governing lawyers in this state. We also agree that Sherry should make restitution in the stipulated amounts. ¶ 62. IT IS ORDERED that the license of Robert L. Sherry to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for period of nine months, effective the date of this order. ¶ 63. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Robert L. Sherry comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. ¶ 64. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order, Robert L. Sherry shall make restitution in the amount of $102 to Mohamad Khan and in the amount of $450 to Jessica Gall. If that restitution is not paid within 60 days, and absent a showing to this court of his inability to pay such restitution within that time, the license of Robert L. Sherry to practice law in this state shall remain suspended until further order of this court. ¶ 65. PATIENCE D. ROGGENSACK, J., did not participate.