|
NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and
modification. The final version will
appear in the bound volume of the official reports. |
|
|
No.
95-1007-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
|
|
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against JEFFREY J.
TEFELSKE, Attorney at Law. |
FILED OCT
10, 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 Jeffrey J. Tefelske to practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for
nine months as discipline for professional misconduct. That misconduct consisted of lack of
diligence in representing three clients, misrepresentations to one of them,
forging the name of a client to interrogatories and failing to cooperate with
the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (Board) in its investigation
into allegations of his misconduct.
We
determine that the recommended license suspension is appropriate discipline to
impose for that misconduct. By it,
Attorney Tefelske has demonstrated his unwillingness to be bound by trial
procedure and has seriously neglected to perform the work for which he had been
retained and concocted stories to conceal that neglect.
Attorney
Tefelske was admitted to the practice of law in Wisconsin in September, 1985
and practiced in Washington county. In
early 1993, he relocated to Colorado and has not practiced law since then. He currently is an inactive member of the
State Bar of Wisconsin. He was once
previously disciplined for professional misconduct: in 1993, the Board publicly reprimanded him for failing to act
with diligence and promptness in a client's representation, failing to keep a
client reasonably informed of the status of the client's legal matter and
failing to cooperate in the Board's investigation.
In
this proceeding, the referee, Attorney Joan Kessler, made the following
findings of fact in respect to Attorney Tefelske's professional misconduct in
three matters. In the first of those,
Attorney Tefelske failed to name witnesses timely, including an essential
witness, thereby preventing his clients from presenting necessary testimony. He also failed to provide discovery, respond
to document production demands and proceed timely with pretrial preparation,
for which his clients were subjected to a $400 sanction, which Attorney
Tefelske failed to pay timely.
In
a second matter, Attorney Tefelske was retained to reopen a client's worker's
compensation claim. On several
occasions he told the client that hearings had been canceled, once for the
reason that the administrative law judge had been in an auto accident, when in
fact no hearing had been scheduled.
Attorney Tefelske never attempted to reopen the client's claim. He left Wisconsin without informing the
client, who believed Attorney Tefelske continued to represent him.
The
third matter concerned Attorney Tefelske's representation of a contracting
business in two actions. He failed to
file pleadings timely, failed to respond to discovery and did not comply with
various provisions of pretrial orders.
In one of the actions, he signed his client's name to answers to
interrogatories and notarized that signature as if it were his client's.
During
the Board's investigation of these matters, Attorney Tefelske did not respond
timely to Board requests for information.
Once this proceeding began, he did not respond to the order to answer
the Board's complaint and did not file his response by the date to which he and
the referee had agreed.
The
referee concluded that Attorney Tefelske's conduct in these matters violated
the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct for
Attorneys: SCR 20.1.3,[1]
requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client; SCR 20:8.4(c),[2]
proscribing conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;
and, implicitly, SCR 21.03(4)[3]
and 22.07(2),[4] requiring an
attorney to cooperate with the Board in its investigation of grievances and
provide requested information. As
discipline for that misconduct, the referee recommended a nine-month license
suspension.
We
adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning Attorney
Tefelske's professional misconduct in these matters. A nine-month license suspension is the appropriate discipline to
impose for that misconduct.
IT
IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Jeffrey J. Tefelske to practice law in
Wisconsin is suspended for a period of nine months, commencing the date of this
order.
IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order Jeffrey J.
Tefelske 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 Jeffrey J. Tefelske to practice law in
Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of the court. IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Jeffrey J. Tefelske comply with the provisions of SCR
22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to practice law in
Wisconsin has been suspended.
JANINE
P. GESKE, J., did not participate.
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
Case No.: 95-1007-D
Complete Title
of Case: In the Matter of Disciplinary
Proceedings Against
Jeffrey J. Tefelske,
Attorney at Law.
________________________________________
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST TEFELSKE
Opinion Filed: October 10, 1995
Submitted on Briefs:
Oral Argument:
Source of APPEAL
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
Concurred:
Dissented:
Not Participating:
ATTORNEYS:
[1] SCR 21.03 provides: Diligence
A
lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a
client.
[2] SCR 20:8.4 provides, in pertinent part: Misconduct
It is
professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
. . .
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty,
fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;
[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.