Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Woodard

Citations: 515 N.W.2d 700; 183 Wis. 2d 575; 1994 Wisc. LEXIS 54Docket: 93-1135-D

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court; May 24, 1994; Wisconsin; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Attorney Stanley V. Woodard's license to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for three years due to severe professional misconduct. 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. Woodard also failed to respond to the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility's (Board) inquiries regarding these issues. His actions included delivering packages, one containing hacksaw blades, to a client without informing jail personnel or inspecting their contents, undermining the penal system's trust in attorneys.

The referee initially recommended a one-year suspension, but the court found this inadequate given Woodard's history of similar misconduct, including prior disciplinary actions and a 60-day suspension in 1989 for tax-related issues. 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. Woodard has been publicly reprimanded multiple times for neglecting client matters and failing to comply with Board inquiries. The referee granted a default judgment due to Woodard's lack of response to the Board's amended complaint and other procedural requirements.

Attorney Woodard, while serving as an assistant state public defender, failed to adequately represent a client charged with assaulting a prison guard. After the client was bound over for trial on February 4, 1991, Woodard did not contact him or appear at a scheduled arraignment on June 12, 1991, which was postponed multiple times. Woodard attributed his absence to his mother's illness and death but did not inform the court prior to the arraignment. Although he requested substitute counsel for a rescheduled arraignment on July 10, 1991, he did not follow through on this or maintain contact with the client. The client sought to amend his plea due to Woodard's absence, and the court became aware of Woodard's intentions to request a continuance but he failed to do so. After informing the court of his mother's death, Woodard requested a trial continuance due to a conflict but later admitted he was unprepared for trial. He failed to confer with his client as directed by the court, leading to concerns expressed to the Board regarding his handling of the case. Woodard delayed responding to the Board's inquiries, citing personal reasons, and ultimately requested the appointment of new counsel but did not file a motion to withdraw. The case was dismissed after the client was transferred to another prison.

In a separate matter, Woodard represented another criminal defendant charged with a drug offense. He met with this client only twice, once in August 1991 and again on the day of jury selection, September 30, 1991. His subsequent meeting with the client occurred on January 9, 1992, the day of the bench trial where the client was convicted. The court noted Woodard's failure to interview witnesses, prepare the client for testimony, maintain necessary trial materials, and understand the client's criminal history, which undermined the client’s credibility. 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.

In summer 1991, Attorney Woodard represented a client in jail awaiting sentencing for multiple offenses. The client's girlfriend, convicted of aiding him, was on probation with a no-contact condition. Despite knowing this and jail regulations requiring inspection of non-legal items, Woodard delivered two sealed packages from her to his client without inspection or notifying jail personnel. Following the client’s sentencing to 224 years, a search revealed four hacksaw blades in one package. Woodard faced criminal charges for aiding the girlfriend's probation violation, which were dismissed after he entered a first offender's program.

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). He also violated SCR 22.07(3) by failing to respond to six calls from a district professional responsibility committee investigator until subpoenaed.

In a separate matter from April to November 1992, Woodard was retained for a child custody case, receiving a $500 retainer and the client's file. He failed to respond to 25 client calls and two letters requesting the return of the file and retainer. Although he promised to return the file, he claimed to have lost it. When returned post-grievance, the file showed no action taken on the case, and Woodard did not refund any retainer despite prior promises. The referee concluded he violated several rules: SCR 20:1.3 for lack of diligence, SCR 20:1.4(a) for failing to inform the client, SCR 20:1.16(d) for not protecting the client's interests upon termination of representation, and SCR 21.03(4) and 22.07(2) and (3) for not responding to Board inquiries about the grievance.

In a fifth matter, Woodard's absence at a motion hearing was noted by the judge as part of a recurring pattern of unexplained failures to appear. He did not respond to two letters from the Board regarding the judge's grievance. Contrary to his claim of only missing one hearing due to lack of notice, the referee determined he had received proper notification and had missed three hearings in that court.

Attorney Woodard was found to have acted with insufficient diligence in representing clients by failing to appear in at least three criminal cases during 1992 and 1993, violating SCR 20:1.3. He also did not expedite litigation in clients' interests (SCR 20:3.2) and failed to cooperate with the Board's investigation (SCR 21.03(4) and SCR 22.07(2) and (3)). Despite submitting a psychiatrist's report indicating he suffers from major depression and dysthymia, the referee determined that this medical incapacity did not excuse his misconduct and rejected Woodard's request to convert the disciplinary proceedings to focus on his medical condition. The referee recommended a one-year suspension of his law license; however, the court found this insufficient given the seriousness of Woodard's violations. As a result, Woodard's license was suspended for three years, effective June 23, 1994, with a requirement to prove recovery from his medical incapacity for reinstatement. Additionally, he was ordered to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding within 60 days, failing which his license would remain suspended. Woodard must also comply with SCR 22.26 regarding duties after suspension. Justice Abrahamson did not participate in the decision.

The administrator or committee has the authority to conduct additional investigations before advising the board. Under SCR 20:8.4, it is deemed professional misconduct for a lawyer to commit criminal acts that negatively impact their integrity or to engage in dishonest conduct. SCR 22.07 grants the administrator or committee the power to require respondents to answer questions and produce documents relevant to investigations, with failure to comply constituting misconduct. Additionally, SCR 22.22 allows the administrator to compel third parties to provide relevant documents. SCR 20:1.4 mandates that lawyers keep clients informed about their case status and respond to reasonable information requests. Upon ending representation, per SCR 20:1.16, lawyers must protect clients' interests by notifying them, allowing time to find new counsel, returning client property, and refunding unearned fees, while retaining certain documents as permitted by law. Lastly, SCR 21.03 requires all attorneys to cooperate with the board and administrator during investigations and grievance processes.