Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Professional Responsibility — public reprimand

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//December 7, 2011//

Professional Responsibility — public reprimand

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//December 7, 2011//

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Civil

Professional Responsibility — public reprimand

Where attorney Michael J. Pierski neglected two client matters and failed to cooperate with OLR, a public reprimand is appropriate.

“The referee noted he was troubled by the fact that Attorney Pierski, with no good explanation, has again failed to cooperate with an OLR investigation. The referee stated that the ‘only conclusion I can reach is that [Attorney Pierski] simply ignored his duties and responsibilities in relation to the ancillary probate proceeding he had agreed to undertake. He also, for the second time, ignored his duties as a Wisconsin attorney to promptly and timely respond to a grievance as requested by OLR.’ The referee found no evidence that Attorney Pierski had any kind of improper motive in failing to handle the ancillary probate proceeding or failing to timely respond to OLR’s investigation, but concluded that Attorney Pierski ‘simply did not recognize the urgency and his responsibility to do so in either case.’ On balance the referee recommended, and we agree, that a public reprimand is appropriate in this case. The referee also recommended, and we agree, that Attorney Pierski should be responsible for all costs of this disciplinary proceeding which total $5,179.43 as of October 5, 2011.

2010AP3012-D OLR v. Pierski

Per Curiam.

Attorneys: For Complainant: Lefever, Ronald P., Brookfield; Weigel, William J., Madison; For Respondent: Pierski, Michael J., pro se

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