Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Christopher L. O'Byrne
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
2001 WI 121 SUPREME COURT CASE NO.: OF WISCONSIN 01-0765-D COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Christopher L. O'Byrne, Attorney at Law. Office of Lawyer Regulation, f/k/a Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility, Complainant, v. Christopher L. O'Byrne, Respondent. DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST O'BYRNE OPINION FILED: SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT: SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: JUSTICES: CONCURRED: DISSENTED: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTORNEYS: November 21, 2001 2001 WI 121 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 01-0765-D STATE OF WISCONSIN IN SUPREME COURT : In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Christopher L. O'Byrne, Attorney at Law. FILED Office of Lawyer Regulation, f/k/a Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility, NOV 21, 2001 Complainant, Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Supreme Court v. Christopher L. O'Byrne, Respondent. ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license suspended. ¶1 PER referee that practice law professional CURIAM Attorney in We review Christopher Wisconsin misconduct the in be the recommendation L. O'Byrne's suspended handling of for an 60 of the license to days for estate. The referee also recommended that Attorney O'Byrne be required to pay the costs of the proceeding. No. ¶2 We determine that the seriousness 01-0765-D of Attorney O'Byrne's professional misconduct warrants a suspension of his license to practice law for 60 days. ¶3 Attorney O'Byrne was admitted to practice Wisconsin in 1986 and practices in Port Washington. law in In 1994 Attorney O'Byrne consented to a public reprimand for misconduct consisting of engaging misrepresentation, in failing conduct to involving disclose facts dishonesty necessary and to correct a misapprehension, failing to fairly and fully disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to an investigation, and failing to respond to a client's reasonable requests for information. ¶4 (OLR) The complaint filed by the Office of Lawyer Regulation alleged misconduct handling of an estate.1 with respect to Attorney O'Byrne's The decedent died on November 22, 1995. An application for informal administration was filed on February 15, 1996. The decedent's son representative on March 18, 1996. as attorney for the estate. was appointed personal Attorney O'Byrne was retained The decedent's son died on April 1 Effective October 1, 2000, Wisconsin's attorney disciplinary process underwent a substantial restructuring. The name of the body responsible for investigating and prosecuting cases involving attorney misconduct was changed to the Office of Lawyer Regulation ("OLR") and the supreme court rules applicable to the lawyer regulation system were also revised. Even though most of the conduct giving rise to the complaint occurred prior to October 1, 2000, the investigative body will be referred to as the "OLR." The references to supreme court rules will be to those currently in effect unless specifically noted. 2 No. 01-0765-D 17, 1996, and a successor personal representative was appointed on May 10, 1996. ¶5 The estate inventory was filed on November 18, 1996. The estate became delinquent in August of 1997. On September 24, 1997, an order to show cause why the estate was not closed was issued by the circuit court. A series of orders to show cause were issued through January of 2001. On March 13, 2001, over five years after the estate was opened, it still had not been closed. The circuit court issued an order of removal discharging Attorney O'Byrne as attorney for the estate. ¶6 Attorney O'Byrne did not file an answer to the OLR's complaint. issuance license of In February 2001 the OLR filed a motion requesting an should order not be to show cause why for his suspended Attorney willful cooperate or respond to two other grievances. cause was issued. temporarily failure to An order to show Attorney O'Byrne failed to respond to the order to show cause. order O'Byrne's On April 3, 2001, this court issued an suspending Attorney O'Byrne's license to practice law for failing to respond or cooperate with the other OLR investigations. ¶7 On May 17, 2001, the OLR's motion for default judgment was heard. judgment That suspension remains in force. Attorney O'Byrne's counsel stipulated that a default could be entered. The referee, John A. Fiorenza, issued a report concluding that Attorney O'Byrne failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness 3 in representing the No. estate, thereby violating SCR 20:1.3.2 01-0765-D The referee also found that Attorney O'Byrne failed to cooperate with the OLR in the investigation of the grievance, thereby violating former SCR fact and 21.03(4)3 and former SCR 22.07(2) and (3).4 ¶8 We adopt conclusions of law. the referee's findings of Attorney O'Byrne's misconduct with respect to his handling of the estate and his failure to cooperate with the OLR's investigation are serious failings warranting a 2 SCR 20:1.3 provides that "[a] lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 3 Former SCR 21.03(4) provided that "[e]very attorney shall cooperate with the board and the administrator in the investigation, prosecution and disposition of grievances and complaints filed with or by the board or administrator." 4 Former SCR 22.07(2) and (3) provided: (2) During the course of an investigation, the administrator or a committee may notify the respondent of the subject being investigated. The respondent shall fully and fairly disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct or medical incapacity within 20 days of being served by ordinary mail a request for response to a grievance. The administrator in his or her discretion may allow additional time to respond. Failure to provide information or misrepresentation in a disclosure is misconduct. The administrator or committee may make a further investigation before making a recommendation to the board. (3) The administrator or committee may compel the respondent to answer questions, furnish documents and present any information deemed relevant to the investigation. Failure of the respondent to answer questions, furnish documents or present relevant information is misconduct. The administrator or a committee may compel any other person to produce pertinent books, papers and documents under SCR 22.22. 4 No. suspension of his license. 01-0765-D A 60-day suspension of his license to practice law is appropriate discipline for his professional misconduct. ¶9 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Christopher L. O'Byrne to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, effective December 26, 2001. ¶10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Christopher L. O'Byrne comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. ¶11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order Christopher L. O'Byrne pay to the OLR the costs of this proceeding. If the costs are not paid within the time specified and absent a showing to this court of his inability to pay the costs within that time, the license of Christopher L. O'Byrne to practice law in Wisconsin until further order of the court. 5 shall remain suspended No. 1 01-0765-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.
