Narrative Opinion Summary
This case involves the disciplinary proceedings against Attorney Stanley V. Woodard, whose license to practice law in Wisconsin was suspended for three years due to significant professional misconduct. The misconduct included neglecting client matters, failing to prepare for trials, missing court appearances, and engaging in criminal conduct by delivering prohibited items to a client in jail. Woodard violated several Supreme Court Rules (SCR), including those mandating diligence, client communication, and cooperation with investigations. Despite his claims of medical incapacity due to depression, the court found these did not justify his misconduct. The referee initially recommended a one-year suspension, but the court determined a harsher penalty was warranted due to Woodard's history of similar violations. He had previously received public reprimands and a 60-day suspension for tax-related issues. The court required Woodard to demonstrate recovery from his medical issues before reinstatement and ordered him to pay the costs of the proceedings. Justice Abrahamson did not participate in the decision. This case underscores the importance of adherence to professional standards and the serious consequences of violating ethical obligations in legal practice.
Legal Issues Addressed
Criminal Conduct Affecting Lawyer's Honesty and Fitnesssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Woodard's actions in delivering packages containing prohibited items constituted criminal conduct, adversely affecting his honesty and fitness as a lawyer.
Reasoning: The referee found Woodard's actions constituted criminal conduct adversely affecting his honesty and fitness as a lawyer, violating SCR 20:8.4(b) and (c).
Failure to Communicate and Protect Client Interestssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Woodard failed to communicate with a client regarding case status and did not protect the client's interests upon termination of representation.
Reasoning: He failed to respond to 25 client calls and two letters requesting the return of the file and retainer.
Failure to Cooperate with Disciplinary Investigationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Woodard repeatedly failed to respond to inquiries from the Board and cooperate with disciplinary investigations.
Reasoning: Woodard also failed to respond to the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility's (Board) inquiries regarding these issues.
Medical Incapacity as a Mitigating Factorsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Woodard's claims of medical incapacity were considered but did not excuse his misconduct.
Reasoning: The court also noted Woodard's claims of medical incapacity as a mitigating factor, but mandated he prove he no longer suffers from this condition to be eligible for reinstatement.
Negligence in Client Representationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Woodard failed to adequately represent clients by not maintaining contact, preparing for trials, or attending court hearings.
Reasoning: The misconduct includes assisting an incarcerated client's friend in violating probation by delivering sealed packages to him, failing to maintain contact with clients, neglecting to prepare for trials, and not attending scheduled court hearings.
Professional Misconduct and License Suspensionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Attorney Woodard's license was suspended for three years due to severe professional misconduct, including negligence and criminal behavior.
Reasoning: Attorney Stanley V. Woodard's license to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for three years due to severe professional misconduct.
Violation of Supreme Court Rules (SCR) for Attorneyssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Woodard violated multiple SCRs by failing to act with diligence, expedite litigation, and respond to Board inquiries.
Reasoning: The referee concluded that Woodard’s actions in both cases constituted a failure to act with the necessary thoroughness and preparation, violating SCR 20:1.1, and a failure to expedite litigation and respond to Board inquiries, violating SCR 20:3.2 and SCR 22.07, respectively.