Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves Attorney Robert J. Smead, who faced disciplinary action resulting in a public reprimand and an obligation to make restitution for professional misconduct. Smead, admitted to practice in Wisconsin in 1998, had a history of disciplinary issues, including a prior suspension in 2010. The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a complaint against him for failing to notify a client, M.R., of his license suspension, not providing an accounting or refund of unearned fees, and not responding to a grievance investigation. Smead admitted to the allegations, and the referee recommended a public reprimand, citing mitigating factors like Smead’s increased caseload and lack of financial motivation. The court confirmed the referee's findings, declining to impose additional costs, and ordered restitution to be held as unclaimed property due to the inability to locate M.R. The decision reflects the court's application of various Supreme Court Rules (SCR), highlighting the importance of client communication and cooperation with disciplinary investigations. Smead's subsequent change in career to nursing was noted as part of the mitigating circumstances considered by the court.
Legal Issues Addressed
Attorney Discipline and Public Reprimandsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Attorney Smead received a public reprimand for professional misconduct, as he had a history of disciplinary actions and failed to notify a client of his license suspension.
Reasoning: Attorney Robert J. Smead is to receive a public reprimand and must make restitution to a former client due to professional misconduct, as recommended by the Honorable Timothy L. Vocke.
Consideration of Mitigating Factors in Disciplinary Actionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Smead's heavy caseload and lack of dishonest intent were considered mitigating factors, leading to the decision of a public reprimand.
Reasoning: The referee found Smead to be remorseful, situationally overwhelmed, and not motivated by greed or dishonesty. Smead has ceased practicing law, pursued nursing, obtained an R.N. degree, and is now employed at a hospital.
Duty to Cooperate with Disciplinary Investigationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Smead's failure to respond to the OLR's requests during the grievance process violated SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6), and SCR 20:8.4(h).
Reasoning: Count Three pertained to Smead's failure to respond in writing to M.R.’s grievance, violating SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6), and enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h).
Failure to Notify Client of License Suspensionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Smead violated SCR 22.26(1)(a) and (b) by not informing his client M.R. of his suspension, which prevented participation in the client's defense.
Reasoning: Count One involved his failure to notify client M.R. of his law license suspension on October 10, 2007, which prevented him from participating in M.R.'s defense, violating SCR 22.26(1)(a) and (b).
Handling of Client Fees upon Termination of Representationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Smead failed to provide an accounting of fees or refund unearned fees, in violation of SCR 20:1.16(d).
Reasoning: Count Two addressed Smead’s failure to provide an accounting of advanced fees and a refund of any unearned fees to M.R., as well as neglecting M.R.’s requests for information on fees, in violation of SCR 20:1.16(d).
Restitution and Unclaimed Propertysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Smead was ordered to make restitution, which due to the inability to locate the client, will be sent to the unclaimed property unit of the Office of the State Treasurer.
Reasoning: Attorney Smead is ordered to make restitution of $1,787.50 to M.R., but due to the inability to locate M.R., the amount will be sent to the unclaimed property unit of the Office of the State Treasurer.