Summary
The Supreme Court of Wisconsin addresses two attorney disciplinary proceedings against Robert J. Smead involving neglect of client matters, failure to communicate, mishandling of fees, failure to cooperate with investigations, and violations arising from practicing or accepting matters while suspended. The court imposed two consecutive 60-day license suspensions, ordered specified restitution, imposed costs in the first matter, and required compliance with post-suspension rules.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the referee's findings and recommended discipline in Smead I should be adopted after no timely appeal was filed.
- Whether the amended stipulation in Smead II should be approved and its stipulated findings, conclusions, restitution, and discipline adopted.
- Whether the two 60-day license suspensions should run consecutively or concurrently.
- What restitution and costs should be imposed in the two disciplinary matters.
Holdings
- The court adopted the referee's findings and recommendations and suspended Smead's license to practice law for 60 days, ordered specified restitution, and imposed $1,204.33 in proceeding costs as of April 24, 2009.
- The court approved the amended stipulation, adopted the stipulated facts and conclusions of law, suspended Smead's license for 60 days, and ordered restitution without imposing costs.
- The two 60-day suspensions were ordered to run consecutively because Smead I and Smead II were separate and discrete disciplinary matters.
Key quotations
“As Smead I and Smead II are separate matters, the suspensions imposed shall run consecutive to each other.” (645)
“Since Smead I and Smead II present two completely discrete and separate disciplinary matters, the two 60-day suspensions will be consecutive, not concurrent.” (653)
Factual background
Robert J. Smead neglected multiple client matters, failed to communicate with clients, failed to protect clients' interests after his license was suspended, failed to refund unearned fees, and failed to cooperate with Office of Lawyer Regulation investigations. In one matter, he failed to hold an advance fee in trust; in another, he delayed filing final divorce documents. He also failed to notify several clients promptly of his license suspension and failed to complete required post-suspension obligations.
Procedural history
The Office of Lawyer Regulation filed a complaint in Smead I alleging ten counts of professional misconduct; after Smead defaulted, referee Richard P. Mozinski recommended a 60-day suspension, restitution, and costs. The OLR later filed Smead II, alleging fifteen additional counts, and the parties submitted an amended stipulation requesting a second 60-day suspension and restitution without costs. The court adopted the referee's findings and recommendations in Smead I, approved the amended stipulation in Smead II, and ordered the two suspensions to run consecutively.