Professional Responsibility — public reprimand

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Civil

Professional Responsibility — public reprimand

Where attorney John R. Loew failed to respond to a client’s inquiries or inform her that his license was suspended, a public reprimand is appropriate.

“The OLR’S complaint alleged that by failing to respond to R.H.’s telephone calls regarding information relating to his representation of her, Attorney Loew violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(4). The second count of the complaint alleged that by failing to properly inform R.H. of his license suspension, his consequent inability to act as an attorney, and that R.H. should seek legal advice elsewhere, Attorney Loew violated SCR 22.26(1)(a) and (b), enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(f). The OLR sought a public reprimand and the imposition of costs.”   “The referee’s findings of fact have not been shown to be clearly erroneous, and we adopt them. We also agree with the referee’s conclusions of law and we agree with the referee’s recommendation for a public reprimand of Attorney Lowe’s license to practice law.”

2011AP777-D OLR v. Loew

Per Curiam.

Attorneys: For Complainant: Weigel, William J., Madison; Bedker, William F., Madison; For Respondent: Loew, John R., Milwaukee