SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN – OFFICE OF LAWYER REGULATION
Public Reprimand With Consent 2007-OLR-10
Hazel J. Washington, Attorney at Law
Attorney Hazel J. Washington (“Washington”), a Wisconsin bar member since 1988, practiced law in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Washington’s law license was suspended at the time of the imposition of this reprimand. On November 3, 2003, Glenda Bailey retained Atty. Hazel J. Washington to represent Terranze C. Sharp (“Sharp”) who was sentenced on August 13, 1991, to life imprisonment for first degree intentional homicide. The initial retainer was for the purpose of reviewing trial transcripts and post-conviction matters in Sharp’s criminal case filed in Milwaukee County, State of Wisconsin vs. Terranze Curtis Sharp, Milwaukee County Case Number 1990CF904071.
On April 5, 2004, and July 19, 2004, Washington received additional fees from Glenda Bailey and Washington agreed to pursue post-conviction relief representation for Sharp.
On January 17, 2006, Washington sent a letter to Sharp advising him that he would receive a copy of the motion she was filing on his behalf.
On January 26, 2006, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered the summary suspension of Washington’s law license, effective February 3, 2006, following Washington’s 2005 felony conviction on one count of willfully attempting to evade federal income tax obligations. The court ordered Washington to comply with the requirements of SCR 22.26 relating to license suspension. The disciplinary action stemming from the criminal conviction was pending as of the date of this reprimand. Washington had no prior discipline.
On January 30, 2006, Washington filed the post-conviction motion on Sharp’s behalf in Milwaukee County Circuit Court.
On January 31, 2006, Washington sent a brief letter to Sharp that said, “Please find enclosed a copy of the Post Conviction Modification filed on your behalf. Good Luck.” Although she had knowledge of her impending suspension at the time of her letter to Sharp, Washington provided Sharp with no information regarding her license status or the related need for Sharp to seek representation elsewhere, if he was to be represented at all; nor did Washington provide Sharp with information about remaining judicial process relating to the pending motion; nor did Washington provide Sharp with information as to where she could be reached after the suspension of her license.
On February 3, 2006, Washington was suspended from the practice of law in Wisconsin. Washington did not provide notice of her suspension to the prosecution or the court in State v. Sharp. On February 28, 2006, Washington filed with OLR an SCR 22.26 compliance affidavit as required in Wisconsin when attorneys are suspended from the practice of law. In her compliance affidavit, Washington stated, “Prior to the effective date of the Summary Suspension, I withdrew from representation of my current active clients. I have no clients in pending matters … Prior to the effective date of the Summary suspension, I advised all clients that they would need to have other counsel represent them.”
On March 29, 2006, the circuit court issued a decision and order denying Sharp’s motion for post-conviction relief. Sharp received a copy of the circuit court decision from a source other than Washington. The court’s decision stated, “A motion for modification based on an erroneous exercise of discretion (formerly abuse of discretion) must be brought pursuant to sec. 973.19, Wis. Stats., within ninety days of sentencing, or pursuant to sec. 809.30, Wis. Stats., within the appellate time limit. The defendant was sentenced in 1991, and his sec. 809.30 appellate time limits have expired. Under the circumstances, his claim of undue harshness or excessiveness as to both the sentence and the parole eligibility date is untimely and will not be considered.”
On May 25, 2006, Sharp sent a letter to Washington’s law office requesting return of his transcript and a copy of the retainer agreement as well as a refund. His letter to Washington was returned as undeliverable.
On July 19, 2006, Glenda Bailey signed a receipt acknowledging that she “received original copies of all documents from Washington Law office” in Sharp’s matter.
On August 17, 2006, OLR received a grievance from Sharp. Sharp alleged that Washington was incompetent in that she filed the motion under section 809.30 when he had requested filing under section 974.06. Sharp further alleged that Washington failed to communicate her intentions to him, failed to notify him of her suspension and confinement status, and failed to return case materials to him.
By failing to recognize that the appellate time limits of the section of the statute under which she filed had expired, Washington violated SCR 20:1.1, which states, “A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.”
By failing at the time of the post-conviction motion to provide Sharp with any information concerning the impending suspension of her law license and the resultant need for Sharp to seek representation elsewhere (if he was to be represented at all) in the matter of the pending post-conviction motion; by failing to provide Sharp with information about remaining judicial process relating to the resolution of the pending motion; by failing to provide Sharp with post-suspension contact information; and by failing to immediately transmit the case file to Sharp or otherwise make it available to him, Washington violated the following Supreme Court Rules:
SCR 20:1.16(d), which states, “Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee that has not been earned. The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to the extent permitted by other law.”
SCR 22.26(1)(a) and (b), which state, “(1) On or before the effective date of license suspension or revocation, an attorney whose license is suspended or revoked shall…(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.”
By failing to provide the court or prosecution in State vs. Sharp with notice of her law license suspension, at the time the post-conviction motion was filed or thereafter, Washington violated SCR 22.26(1)(c), which states, “(1) On or before the effective date of the license suspension or revocation, an attorney whose license is suspended or revoked shall…(c) Promptly provide written notification to the court or administrative agency and the attorney for each party in a matter pending before a court or administrative agency 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. The notice shall identify the successor attorney of the attorney’s client or, if there is none at the time notice is given, shall state the client’s place of residence.”
By failing in her affidavit of February 28, 2006 to list Mr. Terranze Sharp as a client with a pending matter and to list the court and the case number of Sharp’s pending matter, Washington failed to comply with the requirements of SCR 22.26(1)(e)(iii), which says in relevant part, “On or before the effective date of license suspension or revocation, an attorney whose license is suspended or revoked shall . . . within 25 days after the effective date of suspension or revocation, file with the director an affidavit showing . . . a list of clients in all pending matters and a list of all matters pending before any court or administrative agency, together with the case number of each matter.”
Violations of SCR 22.26 are enforceable under the Rules of Professional Conduct via SCR 20:8.4(f), which states, “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.
In accordance with SCR 22.09(3), Attorney Hazel J. Washington is hereby publicly reprimanded.
Dated this 2nd day of May, 2007.
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
Honorable Kim Peterson, Referee
