Opinion ID: 1836956
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: client m.t.

Text: ¶ 18. The OLR complaint further alleged, and Collins now stipulates, that in May 1998, M.T. retained Collins as counsel in a divorce action then pending in the Dane County Circuit Court. Collins was the fourth attorney M.T. had retained in that divorce action. ¶ 19. Opposing counsel in the divorce action subsequently filed a motion seeking a firm date and a time for completion of a property exchange between M.T. and her former husband. On October 29, 1998, the circuit court scheduled a hearing on that motion for Monday, November 9, 1998. Collins, however, intentionally did not timely inform his client, M.T., of that scheduled hearing because he believed that her presence at that hearing might be disruptive. It was not until Friday, November 6, 1998, that Collins mailed M.T. notice of the hearing then scheduled for the next Monday; he knew that that notice would probably not reach M.T. in time for her to arrange to be present at the hearing the following Monday. ¶ 20. M.T. in fact did not appear at that November 9, 1998, hearing. Because she was not present at that hearing, Collins did not raise certain issues she wanted addressed. In M.T.'s absence, the circuit court set a date and time for M.T.'s husband to retrieve his personal property from M.T.'s home. ¶ 21. This course of conduct as alleged in the OLR's complaint resulted in Count Six to which Collins now stipulates: A. Count Six. By deliberately not informing a client of a post-divorce hearing Collins 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).