Opinion ID: 2096988
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Count 4: SCR 22.03(6); [5] former SCR 20:8.4(f); [6] Misconduct during the OLR investigation.

Text: ¶ 14 During the OLR investigation into Mr. and Mrs. D.'s grievance, Attorney Nunnery advised the OLR that an administrative investigation had not found probable cause with respect to the real estate discrimination claim when in fact the case had been closed due to the complainants' failure to cooperate. Because the agency had never made any substantive findings, the referee determined Attorney Nunnery's response to the OLR constituted a misrepresentation. ¶ 15 Also, the referee concluded, Attorney Nunnery advised the OLR that Mr. and Mrs. D. were fully aware of the impact of the seller's bankruptcy when in fact Attorney Nunnery had not fully explained this matter to them. Further, the referee determined Attorney Nunnery misrepresented his actions by advising the OLR an attempt was made to ascertain whether there was any involvement with [the bank] on July 15, 2002. Attorney Nunnery's July 15, 2002, letter to the bank president had merely advised of Attorney Nunnery's intent to add the bank as a party to the discrimination lawsuit and did not raise the denial of credit issue. Although records of the seller's properties had been researched, no evidence tied this research to the bank or to the denial of credit.