2009 WI 18
|
Supreme Court of |
|
|
|
|
Case No.: |
2007AP2351-D |
|
Complete Title: |
|
|
|
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Bill Ginsberg, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant-Respondent, v. Bill Ginsberg, Respondent-Appellant. |
|
|
|
|
|
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GINSBERG |
|
|
|
|
Opinion Filed: |
February 16, 2009 |
|
Submitted on Briefs: |
November 19, 2008
|
|
Oral Argument: |
|
|
|
|
|
Source of Appeal: |
|
|
|
Court: |
|
|
County: |
|
|
Judge: |
|
|
|
|
Justices: |
|
|
|
Concurred: |
|
|
Dissented: |
|
|
Not Participating: |
|
|
|
|
Attorneys: |
|
For the respondent-appellant there were briefs by Stephen J. Meyer and Meyer Law Office, Madison.
For the complainant-respondent there was a brief by Thomas J. Basting, Sr., retained counsel for the Office of Lawyer Regulation, Madison.
2009 WI 18
|
Supreme Court of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notice This order is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. |
|
The Court entered the following order on this date:
Attorney Bill Ginsberg has appealed a referee's
report concluding that Attorney Ginsberg failed to represent his client, A.P.,
in a reasonably diligent manner in violation of SCR 20:1.3 and recommending
this court impose a private reprimand on him together with the costs of this
proceeding.
We review the referee’s conclusions of law de
novo. We conclude that the facts of this
case do not support a conclusion that Attorney Ginsberg’s conduct violated SCR
20:1.3. We therefore dismiss the
complaint. No costs will be imposed.
Attorney Ginsberg was admitted to practice law in
The district attorney signed the proposed
stipulation and forwarded it to the judge who, in turn, accepted the
stipulation and entered judgment against A.P. for operating a motor vehicle 14
miles per hour over the posted speed limit.
The judgment required A.P. to pay a civil forfeiture. However, the district attorney did not tell
Attorney Ginsberg she had signed the stipulation, and she did not send him a
signed copy of the stipulation. The
On October 10, 2007, the Office of Lawyer
Regulation (OLR) filed a complaint against Attorney Ginsberg relating to his
representation of A.P. The complaint
alleged that he violated SCR 20:1.3, which requires a lawyer to act “with
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client,” and former SCR
20:1.4(a), which required that a lawyer “shall keep a client reasonably
informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable
requests for information.” Following the
execution of a stipulation regarding certain facts and an evidentiary hearing,
the referee issued a report and recommendation concluding that Attorney
Ginsberg violated SCR 20:1.3 but that he did not violate former SCR 20:1.4(a).[1] The referee reasoned that “[n]either [the
district attorney’s] negligence, nor that of the clerk of court, provides an
excuse for Ginsberg’s lack of diligence in this case. The consequences of his failure to follow up
on his unilateral offer created the situation that could have been avoided by
the exercise of caution and care that one would expect from a reasonably
prudent and competent lawyer.”
Attorney Ginsberg disputes the referee’s conclusion
that he violated SCR 20:1.3. Attorney
Ginsberg asserts that that he acted with reasonable diligence and promptness in
this matter. He explains that typically
if a district attorney rejects a proposed stipulation he would receive notice
of a trial date or, alternatively, the file might remain dormant. He provided evidence, including the expert
testimony of Attorney Gerald Mowris, that permitting some delay in resolving a
traffic case is usually in the client’s best interest. Moreover, the record supports his assertion
that his failure to receive either notice that the proposed stipulation had
been accepted and executed or notice of entry of judgment was exceedingly
unusual. We acknowledge the OLR’s point
that Attorney Ginsberg could have made “one phone call inquiring as to the
status of his proposed stipulation” or he could have checked the Wisconsin
Circuit Court Access Program available on the Internet. Ideally, Attorney Ginsberg would have checked
the status of his proposed stipulation. However, given this unusual circumstance in which
notice of entry of judgment was not provided to either Attorney Ginsberg or his
client, we decline to hold that Attorney Ginsberg’s conduct in this case
violated his ethical obligation to act with reasonable diligence and promptness
in representing a client. We conclude
that the OLR has failed to establish by clear and substantial evidence
that Attorney Ginsberg violated SCR 20:1.3.
IT IS ORDERED that the OLR’s complaint is dismissed. No costs will be imposed.
[1] The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) has not appealed the dismissal of the alleged violation of SCR 20:1.4(a).