Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Michelle L. Danielson
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
2006 WI 33 SUPREME COURT CASE NO.: OF WISCONSIN 2005AP1903-D COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Michelle L. Danielson, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Michelle L. Danielson, Respondent. DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST DANIELSON OPINION FILED: SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT: SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: JUSTICES: CONCURRED: DISSENTED: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTORNEYS: April 28, 2006 2006 WI 33 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 2005AP1903-D STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Michelle L. Danielson, Attorney at Law: FILED Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, APR 28, 2006 v. Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Supreme Court Michelle L. Danielson, Respondent. ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license suspended. ¶1 PER referee that practice law CURIAM. Attorney in We Michelle Wisconsin professional misconduct. review be the L. recommendation Danielson's suspended for six of the license to months for The misconduct consists of failing to fulfill her obligations with respect to acting with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, keeping the client reasonably informed of the status of his matter, promptly complying with client requests for information, taking steps to No. 2005AP1903-D the extent reasonably practical to protect a client's interests upon termination of representation, responding to the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR), and filing a post-suspension affidavit with the OLR within 25 days of suspension. The referee also recommended that Attorney Danielson be required to refund a $500 retainer and to pay the costs of this proceeding. The OLR has reported costs of $2717.52 as of February 6, 2006. ¶2 We determine that the seriousness of Attorney Danielson's professional misconduct warrants a suspension of her license to practice law for six months. Attorney Danielson was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in 1996. She has not been previously disciplined, although on November 1, 2004, Attorney Danielson was suspended by the Wisconsin Supreme Court for nonpayment of mandatory bar dues. ¶3 On January 11, 2005, Attorney Danielson received a temporary suspension order from the Wisconsin Supreme Court for her failure to cooperate with the OLR and her failure to respond to an order to show cause. Attorney Danielson did not notify her client of either suspension and Attorney Danielson did not comply with duties following suspension or revocation as detailed in SCR 22.26. ¶4 Danielson In as October counsel 2002 a in an client, J.B., insurance retained dispute. Attorney A written retainer agreement was signed and Attorney Danielson accepted a $500 retainer. Attorney Danielson did not provide legal services and in the fall of 2003 the client was advised that Attorney Danielson's phone had been disconnected. 2 All letters No. 2005AP1903-D the client sent to Attorney Danielson were not returned, nor were they responded to by Attorney Danielson. the client filed Danielson. a grievance Attorney In August 2004 with the OLR did not respond Danielson against to Attorney the OLR's correspondence. ¶5 The OLR filed professional misconduct. a six-count complaint alleging Dennis J. Flynn was appointed referee. Attorney Danielson did not file an answer to the complaint and did not otherwise appear in this disciplinary proceeding. At the December 27, 2005, hearing on the OLR's motion for default judgment, the referee found Attorney Danielson in default. ¶6 The referee concluded that by failing to advance her client's failing interests in to Danielson do any failed pursuit of discernible to "act his work with insurance in the claim matter, reasonable and by Attorney diligence and promptness in representing a client," contrary to SCR 20:1.3. As a second count, the referee concluded that by failing to communicate with the client about the status of his matter and by failing to respond to his telephone and written inquiries, Attorney Danielson failed to "keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information," contrary to SCR 20:1.4(a). In a third count, the referee found that by failing to refund the client's $500 retainer when she performed no services for him, Attorney reasonably Danielson failed practicable to to "take protect a steps the extent interests" upon termination of representation, contrary to SCR 20:1.16(d). The 3 client's to No. 2005AP1903-D referee further found that with respect to the fourth count, by failing to provide a written response to the OLR concerning the client's grievance and by willfully failing to provide relevant information to the OLR or to fully answer the OLR's questions during the Attorney course Danielson of the violated investigation of supreme rules court the grievance, regarding a lawyer's conduct, contrary to SCR 22.03(2) and (6),1 pursuant to SCR 20:8.4(f).2 ¶7 The referee further concluded that by failing to notify the client by certified mail of her two suspensions and 1 SCR 22.03(2) and (6) state: Investigation. (2) Upon commencing an investigation, the director shall notify the respondent of the matter being investigated unless in the opinion of the director the investigation of the matter requires otherwise. The respondent shall fully and fairly disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct within 20 days after being served by ordinary mail a request for a written response. The director may allow additional time to respond. Following receipt of the response, the director may conduct further investigation and may compel the respondent to answer questions, furnish documents, and present any information deemed relevant to the investigation. (6) In the course of the investigation, the respondent's wilful failure to provide relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish documents and the respondent's misrepresentation in a disclosure are misconduct, regardless of the merits of the matters asserted in the grievance. 2 SCR 20:8.4(f) states that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to "violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme court order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of lawyers." 4 No. 2005AP1903-D by failing to notify the client to seek legal advice elsewhere, Attorney Danielson violated supreme court rules regarding a lawyer's conduct, contrary to SCR 22.26(1)(a) and (b),3 pursuant to SCR 20:8.4(f). 22.26(1)(e) Additionally, post-suspension by affidavit failing with to the file OLR a within SCR 25 days of her suspension, the referee concluded Attorney Danielson violated SCR 22.26(1)(e),4 pursuant to SCR 20:8.4(f). 3 SCR 22.26(1) states in relevant following suspension or revocation. part: Activities (1) On or before the effective date of license suspension or revocation, an attorney whose license is suspended or revoked shall do all of the following: (a) Notify by certified mail all clients being represented in pending matters of the suspension or revocation and of the attorney's consequent inability to act as an attorney following the effective date of the suspension or revocation. (b) Advise the clients to seek legal advice of their choice elsewhere. 4 SCR 22.26(1)(e) states: Activities following suspension or revocation. (e) Within 25 days after the effective date of suspension or revocation, file with the director an affidavit showing all of the following: (i) Full compliance with the provisions of the suspension or revocation order and with the rules and procedures regarding the closing of the attorney's practice. (ii) A list of all jurisdictions, including state, federal and administrative bodies, before which the attorney is admitted to practice. (iii) A list of clients in all pending matters and a list of all matters pending before any 5 No. ¶8 The referee's fact unless clearly erroneous. findings will not 2005AP1903-D be set aside See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Carroll, 2001 WI 130, ¶29, 248 Wis. 2d 662, 636 N.W.2d 718. We review conclusions of law de novo. Id. We consider the referee's recommendation as to appropriate discipline, but do not accord it conclusive or great weight. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. to determine appropriate It is this court's responsibility discipline and in making that determination, this court may impose discipline more or less severe than recommended. ¶9 set We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law forth in the referee's report. We conclude that the seriousness of Attorney Danielson's misconduct as established in this proceeding warrants a suspension of her license to practice law for a period of six months. We agree with the referee's recommendation costs, that restitution, and eight hours of ethics education should be required. ¶10 this We further conclude that under the circumstances of case, Attorney Danielson's suspension should date from January 11, 2005. ¶11 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Michelle L. Danielson to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of six months, effective January 11, 2005. court or administrative agency, together with the case number of each matter. 6 No. ¶12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney 2005AP1903-D Michelle L. Danielson comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. ¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Michelle L. Danielson refund, within 60 days of the date of this order, the $500 retainer paid by her client, J.B. paid within the specified time, the If this refund is not license of Attorney Danielson to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of this court. ¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order, Attorney Michelle L. Danielson shall pay to the Office of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding. If the costs are not paid within the time specified and absent a showing to this court of her inability to pay the costs within that time, the license of Attorney Danielson to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of this court. ¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Danielson shall complete eight hours of ethics courses approved by the Wisconsin Board of Bar Examiners as a condition of her reinstatement. the course work is not completed, the license of If Attorney Danielson to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of this court. 7 No. 1 2005AP1903-D
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
