Student Name: Cheri Ritter

Link For Opinion: http://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=51680

Title: Wisconsin: MCDAO Attorney Publicly Reprimanded for Professional Misconduct

In In re Frisch, 2010 WI 60; 784 N.W.2d 670; 2010 Wisc. LEXIS 54, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin publicly reprimanded and required an attorney with the Milwaukee Country District Attorney’s Office (MCDAO) to pay $1,500 of court costs for professional misconduct resulting from the attorney’s struggles with alcohol addiction.

Of the three charges brought against the attorney, he did not contest Counts 1 and 2. Count 1 alleged that he violated SCRs 20:1.3 and 20:3.2 by failing to complete the necessary work for a client’s case. Count 2 alleged that he violated SCRs 20:3.4(c) and SCRs 20:3.4(d) by failing to provide discovery in three cases and failing to comply with discovery requests. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin affirmed the referee’s conclusion that the allegations in Counts 1 and 2 had been proven.

The attorney did dispute the charge in Count 3, which alleged that he had violated SCRs 20:8.4(c) by hiding certain files in his car and then misrepresenting his knowledge of their whereabouts to others. The referee ruled that Count 3 had not been proven as no evidence existed to support the allegations; the Court concurred with that finding.

Although the attorney in this case had admitted to multiple violations and had caused harm to clients, he however had never been professionally disciplined in his over 30 years of practicing law, had self-reported his alcohol dependency, and had admitted to the relevant counts against him. He had also already been suspended without pay from his job for a lengthy period and had undergone alcohol dependency treatment, partly at his own expense, attempting to remedy the underlying problem. Due to the mitigating factors in the attorney’s favor, the referee decided on public reprimand as an appropriate disciplinary action.

This case illustrates the significance of maintaining a level of competency in not allowing personal problems to affect professional duties as an attorney, and for taking responsibility if professional and ethical issues do arise. An attorney must be able to perform all necessary duties for the client, in compliance with SCRs 20:1.3 which provides that an attorney “shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client” and 20:3.2 which states that an attorney “shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client.”

Labels for the post: legal ethics, professional misconduct, alcohol dependency, public reprimand, SCRs 20:1.3, SCRs 20:3.2.