|
|
NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and
modification. The final version will
appear in the bound volume of the official reports. |
|
|
|
No.
94-2158-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
|
|
|
|
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against JAMES A.
BEAUDRY, Attorney at Law. |
FILED OCT
10, 1995 Marilyn L. Graves Clerk of Supreme Court Madison, WI |
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney publicly reprimanded.
PER
CURIAM. We review the recommendation of the referee that
Attorney James A. Beaudry be publicly reprimanded for professional
misconduct. That misconduct consisted
of his failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing
a client in a personal bankruptcy, failing to keep that client reasonably
informed of the status of the matter and engaging in conduct involving
dishonesty or misrepresentation in his filing of the bankruptcy petition. We determine that the recommended public
reprimand is appropriate discipline to impose for that professional
misconduct.
Attorney
Beaudry was licensed to practice law in Wisconsin in 1978 and practices in
Milwaukee county. In 1993, the Board of
Attorneys Professional Responsibility privately reprimanded him for neglect of
a legal matter.
The
referee, Attorney Michael Ash, made the following findings of fact concerning
Attorney Beaudry's misconduct in the representation of a client who retained
him in June, 1993 to pursue a personal bankruptcy, for which she paid him $450. At her second meeting with him on August 24,
1993, the client signed a voluntary bankruptcy petition that Attorney Beaudry
had prepared, which included schedules of debts and assets and other financial
information the client had provided him.
Three of the client's five signatures on the petition declared
"under penalty of perjury" that the information set forth therein was
true and correct. Although the client
did not herself enter the date she had signed, the referee found that the date
of August 24, 1993 had been typed or written next to each of her
signatures.
During
that meeting, when the client expressed concern that not all of her creditors
had been listed on the schedules, Attorney Beaudry told her to obtain a credit
report and said he would hold the petition and schedules until he heard from
her. The client gave him a credit
report on September 10, 1993, that revealed one creditor not previously named
on the schedules. Attorney Beaudry told
the client he would add the additional creditor to the schedule and that within
two or three weeks he would file the bankruptcy petition.
Notwithstanding
that he had all of the information needed to file the petition on September 10,
1993, Attorney Beaudry did not file it until November 10, 1993. In the intervening time, Attorney Beaudry
and his client never spoke with one another, despite the client's repeated
attempts to contact him. The client had
received numerous calls from creditors who said they were unaware of her
bankruptcy. The client then attempted
numerous times to reach Attorney Beaudry by telephone to learn the status of
the bankruptcy and went to his office several times but did not get to see
him. Attorney Beaudry never contacted
his client in response to those inquiries and made no significant effort to do
so.
When
the client contacted the bankruptcy court in November, 1993 and learned that no
petition had been filed, she retained other counsel to represent her. That attorney filed the bankruptcy petition
on November 10, 1993, coincidentally the same day Attorney Beaudry filed the
client's bankruptcy petition.
The
petition Attorney Beaudry filed was generally the same document the client had
signed on August 24, 1993 but he added one or two creditors, apparently based
on the credit report the client gave him, although he did so without the
client's knowledge. Although the client
did not have an opportunity to review and verify the contents of the revised
petition prior to its filing, Attorney Beaudry altered all of the dates that
had been inserted next to his client's signatures to read
"11-9-93," making it appear
that the client had signed and verified the information on the revised
petition. Attorney Beaudry did not
inform the client that he had altered the date of her signature and had done
nothing to verify that the financial information set forth in the petition was
the same as that of two months earlier.
When he filed the petition, the information contained in it was not
current.
The
filing of two bankruptcy petitions on behalf of the same person on the same day
by two different attorneys prompted an inquiry by the bankruptcy judge. Following a hearing at which Attorney
Beaudry acknowledged he had changed the dates on the petition signed by his
client, the court found that he had not acted diligently and, because of the
two months' delay in filing the client's petition, was not entitled to
compensation for or reimbursement of any expenses he incurred in her
representation. The court dismissed the
petition filed by Attorney Beaudry for cause and ordered him to refund to the
client the fee she had paid him.
Attorney Beaudry complied with that order.
On
the basis of those facts, the referee concluded as follows. Attorney Beaudry failed to act with
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing this client, in violation
of SCR 20:1.3;[1] failed to
keep his client reasonably informed of the status of her bankruptcy matter, in
violation of SCR 20:1.4(a);[2]
and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty or misrepresentation, in violation
of SCR 20:8.4(c),[3] by altering
the bankruptcy petition to indicate falsely that it had been signed and the
financial information in it verified by his client on November 9, 1993, when in
fact it was not signed on that date and the client had not verified the
financial information in it. As
discipline for that misconduct, the referee recommended that the court impose a
public reprimand on Attorney Beaudry.
We
adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning Attorney
Beaudry's professional misconduct. A
public reprimand is the appropriate discipline to impose for that
misconduct.
IT
IS ORDERED that Attorney James A. Beaudry is publicly reprimanded as discipline
for professional misconduct.
IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order James A.
Beaudry pay to the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility the costs of
this disciplinary proceeding, provided that if the costs are not paid within
the time specified and absent a showing to this court of his inability to pay
the costs within that time, the license of James A. Beaudry to practice law in
Wisconsin shall be suspended until further order of the court.
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
Case No.: 94-2158-D
Complete Title
of Case: In the Matter of Disciplinary
Proceedings Against
James A. Beaudry,
Attorney at Law.
___________________________________
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BEAUDRY
Opinion Filed: October 10, 1995
Submitted on Briefs:
Oral Argument:
Source of APPEAL
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
Concurred:
Dissented:
Not Participating:
ATTORNEYS:
[1] SCR 20:1.3 provides: Diligence
A
lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a
client.