|
NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and
modification. The final version will
appear in the bound volume of the official reports. |
|
|
No.
95-0641-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
|
|
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against PATRICK T.
COWAN, Attorney at Law. |
FILED DEC
21, 1995 Marilyn L. Graves Clerk of Supreme Court Madison, WI |
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license suspended.
PER
CURIAM. We review the recommendation of the referee that the
license of Patrick T. Cowan to practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for six
months as discipline for professional misconduct. That misconduct consisted of his continuing to practice law while
his license was suspended for misconduct, failing to return property to a
client upon request, and failing to cooperate with the Board of Attorneys
Professional Responsibility (Board) in its investigation of three
grievances.
We
determine that the recommended license suspension is appropriate discipline to
impose for Attorney Cowan's misconduct.
He has established a pattern of not responding timely to client matters
and has repeatedly refused to cooperate with the disciplinary authorities. We also impose as a condition of the reinstatement
of his license the recommendation of the referee concerning Attorney Cowan's
fitness to resume the practice of law.
Attorney
Cowan was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in 1969 and practices in
Superior. His license is currently
suspended, pursuant to court order of October 16, 1992, when it was suspended
for 90 days as discipline for neglect of a client's legal matter and his
failure to cooperate with the disciplinary authorities in its
investigation. Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Cowan, 171 Wis. 2d 71, 490 N.W.2d 17. That suspension continues for the reason
that Attorney Cowan has not provided the Board the requisite documentation that
he terminated his law practice and notified his clients of the suspension and
has not paid the costs of the proceeding.
Prior to that suspension, Attorney Cowan was twice disciplined for
professional misconduct: he received a
private reprimand from the Board in October, 1986 for neglect of client matters
and failure to cooperate with the Board; the Board publicly reprimanded him,
with his consent, October 27, 1988, for his neglect of three client matters and
his failure to cooperate with the Board.
The
referee, the Hon. Timothy L. Vocke, reserve judge, made findings of fact based
on the allegations of the Board's complaint, as Attorney Cowan did not file
timely an answer or other responsive pleading.
In March, 1993, while his license was suspended, Attorney Cowan was in
the Douglas county courthouse and discussed settlement with the attorney for
the plaintiff in a replevin action on behalf of the defendant, who had appeared
pro se at the initial hearing. Attorney
Cowan told the plaintiff's counsel that he was a licensed attorney, but stated
that he was not in fact representing the defendant but was assisting him
because he was a family friend. Upon
further inquiry, Attorney Cowan acknowledged that his license to practice law
currently was under suspension.
Attorney Cowan did not respond to two letters from the Board requesting
information concerning this matter, but he subsequently did respond to
questions from the district committee to which the matter was referred for
investigation.
Also
in March, 1993, while accompanying people posting bail for a person being held
in Douglas county jail, Attorney Cowan learned that another person with whom he
was acquainted was being held. Attorney
Cowan thereupon asked the jailer where his "client" was, demanding to
talk to him immediately. When asked
whether his license to practice law had been reinstated following its earlier
suspension, Attorney Cowan told the jailer that it had been. When the Board received a grievance from the
sheriff regarding this incident, it sent two letters to Attorney Cowan
requesting a response, but he did not respond, although he ultimately answered
questions put to him by the district committee. A third matter concerned
Attorney Cowan's failure to respond to requests by a former divorce client in
early 1992 to return the abstract of title for property she had been awarded in
that action, which she intended to sell.
During its investigation, the district committee learned that the
purchaser of the property had withheld $250 from the purchase practice because
of the lack of a proper abstract of title.
Attorney Cowan did not respond to two letters from the Board regarding
the client's grievance, but he ultimately produced the client's file, in which
the abstract was located. The abstract
was returned to the client in early February, 1993.
On
the basis of the foregoing facts, the referee concluded as follows. Attorney Cowan violated SCR 22.26(2)[1]
by continuing to engage in the practice of law while his license to do so was
under suspension by order of the court; his refusal to return client property
upon request violated SCR 20:1.16(d);[2]
his refusal to respond to requests from the Board for information regarding
grievances concerning his conduct violated SCR 21.03(4)[3]
and 22.07(2).[4]
In
recommending a six-month license suspension as discipline for that misconduct,
the referee noted several aggravating factors, including Attorney Cowan's prior
discipline, his continued pattern of refusing to respond to the Board seeking
information during its investigation into allegations of his misconduct, and
his failure to participate timely in the instant disciplinary proceeding. The referee considered as mitigating factors
that there was no evidence of moral turpitude or dishonesty in respect to the
misconduct established in this proceeding or that any client was injured by
it.
We
adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law and determine that
the recommended discipline should be imposed for Attorney Cowan's professional
misconduct.
IT
IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Patrick T. Cowan to practice law in
Wisconsin is suspended for a period of six months, effective the date of this
order.
IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order Patrick T.
Cowan pay to the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility the costs of
this 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 Patrick T. Cowan to practice law in Wisconsin
shall remain suspended until further order of the court.
IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Patrick T. Cowan comply with the provisions of SCR
22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to practice law in
Wisconsin has been suspended.
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
Case No.: 95-0641-D
Complete Title
of Case: In the Matter of Disciplinary
Proceedings Against
Patrick T. Cowen,
Attorney at Law.
________________________________________
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST COWEN
Opinion Filed: December 21, 1995
Submitted on Briefs:
Oral Argument:
Source of APPEAL
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
Concurred:
Dissented:
Not Participating:
ATTORNEYS:
[1] SCR 22.26 provides, in pertinent part: Activities on revocation or suspension of
license.
. . .
(2) A suspended or disbarred attorney may not
engage in the practice of law or in any law work activity customarily done by
law students, law clerks or other paralegal personnel, except that he or she
may engage in law related work for a commercial employer not itself engaged in
the practice of law.
[2] SCR 20:1.16 provides, in pertinent
part: Declining or terminating
representation
. . .
(d) Upon termination of representation, a lawyer
shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's
interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for
employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the
client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee that has not been
earned. The lawyer may retain papers
relating to the client to the extent permitted by other law.
[3] SCR 21.03 provides, in pertinent part: General principles. . . .
(4) Every attorney shall cooperate with the
board and the administrator in the investigation, prosecution and disposition
of grievances and complaints filed with or by the board or administrator.
[4] SCR 22.07 provides, in pertinent part: Investigation.
. . .
(2) During the course of an investigation, the
administrator or a committee may notify the respondent of the subject being
investigated. The respondent shall
fully and fairly disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to the alleged
misconduct or medical incapacity within 20 days of being served by ordinary mail
a request for response to a grievance.
The administrator in his or her discretion may allow additional time to
respond. Failure to provide information
or misrepresentation in a disclosure is misconduct. The administrator or committee may make a further investigation
before making a recommendation to the board.