Court Opinion

ID: 9689740
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:45:30.55014+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:51.885674
License: Public Domain

BROWN, P.J.
¶25. (dissenting). I respectfully dissent. At paragraph 17 of the majority opinion, the following statement is made:
Wisconsin administrative law does provide for the right to assistance of counsel for final revocation hearings. See Wis. Admin. Code § HA 2.05(3)(f) ("The client's rights at the [revocation] hearing include: The right to the assistance of counsel."). But there is no provision establishing a concomitant right to counsel on administrative appeal. We decline to establish such a right in this case.
For the reasons that follow, I believe the above statement is wrong. I construe WlS. ADMIN. CODE § HA 2.05 as granting the right to effective assistance of counsel at both the revocation hearing and on the administrative appeal.
¶ 26. First, I think it is necessary to cite the standard of review regarding construction of administrative rules. "When interpreting an administrative regulation, we generally use the same rules of construction and interpretation as applicable to statutes." State v. Busch, 217 Wis. 2d 429, 441, 576 N.W.2d 904 (1998). An administrative rule "is ambiguous if reasonable minds could differ as to its meaning." State v. Corey J.G., 215 Wis. 2d 395, 411, 572 N.W.2d 845 (1998) (citation omitted). To resolve the ambiguity of a rule, "this court must look beyond the [rule]'s language *158and examine the scope, history, context, subject matter, and purpose of the [rule]." Beard v. Lee Enters., Inc., 225 Wis. 2d 1, 10, 591 N.W.2d 156 (1999). Ambiguous rules should be interpreted to effect legislative intent. See Voss v. City of Middleton, 162 Wis. 2d 737, 749, 470 N.W.2d 625 (1991).
¶ 27. Although the majority does not say so, it apparently is of the opinion that WlS. Admin. Code § HA 2.05(3) must be construed as to allow for counsel only at the hearing stage, not at the administrative appeal stage as well. I am satisfied, however, that § HA 2.05(3) is ambiguous because reasonable minds could differ regarding how it should be interpreted. Section HA 2.05(3) reads as follows:
CLIENT'S RIGHTS. The client's rights at the hearing include:
(a) The right to be present;
(b) The right to deny the allegation;
(c) The right to be heard and to present witnesses;
(d) The right to present documentary evidence;
(e) The right to question witnesses;
(f) The right to the assistance of counsel;
(g) The right to waive the hearing;
(h) The right to receive a written decision stating the reasons for it based upon the evidence presented; and
(i) The right to appeal the decision in accordance with sub. (8).
¶ 28. One reasonable interpretation of WlS. Admin. Code § HA 2.05(3) is the interpretation made by the majority that the right to effective assistance of *159counsel only applies during the hearing. That section, entitled "Client's rights," begins by stating, "The client's rights at the hearing include." Id. (emphasis added). After this introductory phrase, nine rights are listed, including the right to assistance of counsel. Consequently, one reasonable view of § HA 2.05(3) is that the right to assistance of counsel only applies at the hearing because this right is only enumerated in § HA 2.05(3) and the introductory language of the section arguably indicates that the enumerated rights only apply at the hearing.
¶ 29. However, another reasonable interpretation of Wis. Admin. Code § HA 2.05(3) is that the right to assistance of counsel applies at the hearing and on the appeal. Despite the fact that the introductory language of § HA 2.05(3) speaks of rights at the hearing, the rights actually enumerated in § HA 2.05(3) include prehearing rights, rights at the hearing and posthear-ing rights. For example, the right to waive the hearing is a prehearing right. The right to be present, to be heard, to deny allegations, to present witnesses and documentary evidence, and to question witnesses are rights at the hearing. The right to receive a written decision and appeal that decision are posthearing rights. Thus, the § HA 2.05(3) list includes more than just rights at the hearing itself.
¶ 30. The remaining right, the right to effective assistance of counsel, is not inherently a prehearing right, a hearing right or a posthearing right. Considering that some of the rights enumerated in Wis. Admin. CODE § HA 2.05(3) apply at prehearing and posthearing stages of the revocation proceedings, the introductory language of § HA 2.05(3) does not clearly indicate that the right to assistance of counsel is limited to the hearing itself. Thus, § HA 2.05(3) can be reasonably *160interpreted to guarantee the right to assistance of counsel on the posthearing appeal.
¶ 31. To resolve the ambiguity of WlS. Admin. Code § HA 2.05(3), I move to § HA 2.05(8). Section HA 2.05(8) reads as follows:
APPEAL, (a) The client, the client's attorney, if any, or the department representative may appeal the administrative law judge's decision by filing a written appeal with arguments and supporting materials, if any, with the administrator within 10 days of the date of the administrative law judge's written decision.
(b) The appellant shall submit a copy of the appeal to the other party who has 7 days to respond.
¶ 32. The introductory language to that section, which discusses the right to administrative review and establishes the procedure for review, clearly says that the "client, the client's attorney, if any, or the department representative may appeal the administrative law judge's decision." Wis. Admin. Code § HA 2.05(8)(a) (emphasis added). I look at this language as evidence that the code drafters intended for the client to have the right to counsel at both the hearing and administrative appeal stages. In my view, this language clarifies the seemingly ambiguous language in § HA 2.05(3). Reading the two sections in pari materia, I would hold that a client's right to counsel continues through the administrative review process.
¶ 33. It makes sense that the code drafters would provide a broader right to counsel than my colleagues believe. It goes almost without saying that the client's liberty interest is at stake. If probation is revoked, the client goes to prison. See State ex rel. Vanderbeke v. Endicott, 210 Wis. 2d 502, 513-14, 563 N.W.2d 883 *161(1997). At the time the present code was drafted, Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973), was on the books. The code drafters had to know that they did not have to give a right to counsel in all revocation hearings to begin with. They could have granted only the minimum right to assistance of counsel during probation revocation proceedings as required by Gagnon, which is the right to counsel at the hearing only on a case-by-case basis. See id. at 790. But the fact that the code drafters saw fit to grant a right to counsel at every revocation hearing shows that the drafters went beyond what was necessary under the law for a reason. That reason was to make certain that before a person's liberty interest is curtailed, he or she should have the right to competent assistance.
¶ 34. I cannot believe that, after giving the client a broader right than the law demands, the code drafters then arbitrarily decided that assistance of counsel was somehow less important at the administrative appeal stage. Appellate advocacy is just as important as trial advocacy. And time is of the essence. Only ten days are allotted to appeal the administrative law judge's decision to the administrator. I cannot believe that the drafters would have intended that, during the critical ten-day period, the client would be left to his or her own devices in "filing a written appeal with arguments and supporting materials, if any." WlS. ADMIN. CODE § HA 2.05(8)(a). That simply makes no sense. I am convinced that the drafters meant to allow counsel at both stages, and I am convinced that the language in § HA 2.05(3) and (8), read together, says so. The majority claims that I am "creating" a right where none exists. The majority is mistaken. I am creating nothing. I am simply interpreting the code provision in the manner consistent with our canons of statutory inter*162pretation and coming to the conclusion that I believe the drafters intended.
¶ 35. Even if I am wrong and Mentek only had the right to effective assistance of counsel during the revocation hearing, I would still hold for Mentek. Assuming, as I must at this stage, that Mentek's version of the facts of this case is true, Mentek received ineffective assistance of counsel from his attorney. According to Mentek, his attorney promised to represent Mentek on appeal and failed to do so without telling Mentek until it was too late for Mentek to file the appeal pro se.
¶ 36. If Mentek's version of the facts is true, then Mentek's attorney violated Supreme Court Rule 20:1.3 (2000), which requires lawyers to act with diligence when representing a client.1 A portion of the comments related to SCR 20:1.3 indicates that after receiving an adverse result from a judicial or administrative proceeding, diligence requires informing the client of continued representation or a prompt withdrawal in writing.2 Without proper withdrawal, a client may reasonably assume representation is continuing. In this *163case, Mentek's attorney allegedly failed to act with diligence. According to Mentek, rather than promptly declaring his representation at an end after the hearing, Mentek's attorney promised to continue representation but failed to do so. When Mentek's attorney finally withdrew, the deadline to appeal had passed and Mentek's appellate rights were forfeited through no fault of his own.
¶ 37. While there is no law holding that a violation of a Supreme Court Rule is ineffective assistance of counsel per se, I would hold that, if Mentek's allegations are true, then his attorney's conduct produced such a prejudicial result for Mentek that there was ineffective assistance of counsel in this case, as a matter of law. Even if Mentek had no right to representation on appeal, justice requires that Mentek had a right to at least be told by his attorney that the attorney could no longer represent him. And even if Mentek had no right to an attorney for the appeal process, he did have a right to rely on his attorney when the attorney promised he would file an appeal.
¶ 38. I am concerned that the majority's opinion can be cited for the proposition that an attorney may blatantly misrepresent the law or the facts or both to a revoked client regarding the services that the attorney promises to perform and, when the client relies on the attorney's word, the client suffers the consequences — simply because the hearing was over with when the attorney made these representations. In this case, the consequences were severe; Mentek was denied an opportunity to protect his liberty interest by appealing and was sent to prison.
¶ 39. I take solace in the fact that the United States Supreme Court recently touched on this subject in Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 120 S. Ct. 1029 (2000). I recog*164nize that the case did not involve a revocation proceeding. But I think the language of the Supreme Court decision is relevant to my analysis. There, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had held that, following a guilty plea and sentence, counsel must file a notice of appeal unless the defendant specifically instructs otherwise; failing to file is per se deficient. The Supreme Court disagreed. The majority wrote: "We cannot say, as a constitutional matter, that in every case counsel's failure to consult with the defendant about an appeal is necessarily unreasonable . . . ." Id. at 1036. But the Court did say that an attorney has a constitutionally imposed duty to consult with a defendant about an appeal in two situations: when there is reason to think that a rational defendant would want to appeal because there is a nonfrivolous issue and when "this particular defendant reasonably demonstrated to counsel that he was interested in appealing." Id. The Court ended the discussion by writing that this will be the case in a vast majority of cases.
¶ 40. I believe that the United States Supreme Court was sending a message and that message is that if a person wants to appeal, and that person conveys that interest to his or her attorney, the attorney has a duty to either file the appeal or explain why he or she cannot or will not do so. A client cannot be held to have waived the right to appeal by relying to his or her detriment on a lawyer's promise to appeal when the lawyer then fails to live up to that promise. If the phrase "effective counsel" means anything, it means that.
¶ 41. I would reverse and remand this case and instruct the trial court to hold a Machner3 hearing to *165decide whether Mentek asked his attorney to file an appeal and whether the attorney agreed to do so. If the trial court found Mentek's version of the facts is correct, the remedy would be to allow Mentek to file his administrative appeal anew. If I am correct in my interpretation of the administrative code, then the appeal would be with the assistance of an attorney. If I am incorrect about my construction of the administrative code, but am correct that Mentek's attorney was still ineffective, then Mentek would be allowed to process his administrative appeal pro se.

 Supreme Court Rule 20:1.3 (2000) states: "Diligence A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client."

 Part of the Comment to SCR 20:1.3 states:
Unless the relationship is terminated as provided in Rule 1.16, a lawyer should carry through to conclusion all matters undertaken for a client .... Doubt about whether a client-lawyer relationship still exists should be clarified by the lawyer, preferably in writing, so that the client will not mistakenly suppose the lawyer is looking after the client's affairs when the lawyer has ceased to do so. For example, if a lawyer has handled a judicial or administrative proceeding that produced a result adverse to the client but has not been specifically instructed concerning pursuit of an appeal, the lawyer should advise the client of the possibility of appeal before relinquishing responsibility for the matter.

 State v. Machner, 101 Wis. 2d 79, 303 N.W.2d 633 (1981).