Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Professional Responsibility — public reprimand

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//October 5, 2011//

Professional Responsibility — public reprimand

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//October 5, 2011//

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Civil

Professional Responsibility — public reprimand

Where attorney Ronald L. Brandt received a public reprimand in Massachusetts, reciprocal discipline is ordered.

“The Massachusetts Board determined that Attorney Brandt’s failure to keep his client informed about the status of the matter and to advise the client of his decision not to pursue a claim violated Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC) 1.2(a), 1.3, and 1.4. It further concluded that Attorney Brandt’s decision to terminate the representation of the client without taking reasonably practical steps to protect the client’s interests and his failure to return all of the client’s files to the client in a seasonable manner violated MRPC 1.16(d).”

“The Massachusetts Board accepted the parties’ stipulation of facts and imposed the requested public reprimand. It noted as an aggravating factor that Attorney Brandt had substantial experience in the practice of law.”

“As noted above, Attorney Brandt has not raised any of the reasons for imposing a different level of discipline set forth in SCR 22.22(3). Our review of the record also discloses no reason why a different level of discipline should be imposed in this state. Consequently, we impose a public reprimand under SCR 22.22(3) as discipline identical to that imposed in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.”

2011AP1193-D OLR v. Brandt

Per Curiam.

Attorneys: For Complainant: Hendrix, Jonathan E., Madison; For Respondent: Brandt, Ronald L., Quincy, MA

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests