950 N.W.2d 191
Wis.2020Background
- Scott F. Anderson, admitted 1985, had multiple prior discipline actions including a 2010 60-day suspension for failures to communicate and act on clients' behalf.
- OLR filed a 10-count complaint (Sept. 26, 2018) based on Anderson's representation of two clients: D.J. (appointed counsel) and J.H. (standby counsel).
- For D.J.: Anderson delayed/failed to communicate, did not file motions requested by the client, met sporadically, and withdrew before sentencing after a no-contest plea; OLR alleged violations of communication and diligence rules (Counts 1–4).
- For J.H.: as standby counsel Anderson failed to prepare/file or distribute motions and witness lists, did not provide a deadline letter or additional discovery, and the client proceeded pro se and was convicted; OLR alleged diligence, communication, and candor violations (Counts 5–10).
- The referee found clear-and-convincing proof of violations for Counts 1–3 and 5–7 (communication and diligence failures), but did not find sufficient proof on the discovery follow-up and misrepresentation/OLR-misconduct counts; recommended a 30‑day suspension.
- The Supreme Court adopted the referee’s findings and conclusions but imposed a 60‑day suspension (effective Dec. 9, 2020), assessed costs of $19,339.98, and relied on the court’s general minimum 60‑day suspension policy and Anderson’s disciplinary history.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (OLR) | Defendant's Argument (Anderson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Failure to consult/communicate with client (D.J.) | Anderson failed to timely consult about motions, appeals, and discovery, violating SCR 20:1.4(a) | Anderson said some requested actions were unnecessary and contested timing/importance | Court found violations of SCR 20:1.4(a)(2)–(4) (Counts 1–3) proven |
| 2. Lack of diligence in representation (D.J. and J.H.) | Anderson did not act promptly to review discovery, file motions, or prepare cases, violating SCR 20:1.3 | Anderson argued he continued discussions with prosecutors and some items were unnecessary; contested scope of duties as standby counsel | Court found violations of SCR 20:1.3 as to proven counts (Counts 4 partly not proven; Counts 5–7 proven for J.H.) |
| 3. Duties and obligations of standby counsel (J.H.) | Standby counsel must act diligently and communicate when asked to assist; Anderson’s failures prejudiced J.H. | Anderson argued limited role and that some discovery was already in J.H.’s possession; contested specific omissions | Court agreed a limited attorney-client relationship existed and found duties to act with diligence and communicate; sanctions for counted violations (Counts 5–7) |
| 4. False statements to the court and OLR (J.H.) | Anderson made false/misleading statements to the court and to OLR about providing discovery and receiving motions (SCR 20:3.3, SCR 22.03(6)/20:8.4(h)) | Anderson denied knowingly misleading the court or OLR and testified J.H. had previously received discovery from prior counsel | Referee and Court did not find clear-and-convincing evidence of knowing misrepresentation (Counts 9–10 not proven) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Osicka, 317 Wis. 2d 135 (policy recognizing minimum 60‑day suspension as baseline in many lawyer-discipline suspensions)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Grady, 188 Wis. 2d 98 (recognizing need for substantial suspension in lawyer-discipline matters)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Schnitzler, 140 Wis. 2d 574 (same; endorsing a 60‑day baseline for license suspensions)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Anderson, 324 Wis. 2d 627 (Anderson's 2010 disciplinary decision imposing a 60‑day suspension for similar communication and diligence failures)