Opinion ID: 2096988
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Count 3: Former SCR 20:1.4(b); [4] Communication.

Text: ¶ 12 The referee further concluded the same conduct gave rise to a violation of SCR 20:1.4(b), which required Attorney Nunnery to explain the discrimination suit to the extent reasonably necessary to permit Mr. and Mrs. D. to make informed decisions. The referee found credible Mrs. D.'s testimony that she believed Attorney Nunnery was pursuing claims against the bank. The referee stated: Her lengthy narratives about what she believed Mr. Nunnery should have done [reveal] her utter confusion with the legal procedures in which she was involved. Her lawyer had an obligation to explain the reality of the situation in a manner which could be understood by the [clients]. This did not happen. ¶ 13 The referee said Attorney Nunnery did not explain why he did not name the bank as a defendant, nor did he keep Mr. and Mrs. D. informed of his strategy to determine whether a viable claim existed against the bank. Also, the referee said, there was no evidence Attorney Nunnery ever explained the legal effect of the seller's bankruptcy.