Background
The Office of Lawyer Regulation filed two disciplinary complaints against Jeremiah W. Meyer-O’Day arising from his representation in several criminal and postconviction matters. The complaints alleged that he delayed for more than two years in paying a forensic expert after receiving reimbursement from the State Public Defender; allowed a client’s direct-appeal deadline to lapse by failing to file a postconviction motion; failed to provide client files after his removal or termination; and did not timely file a postconviction motion for another client.
In the latter matter, Meyer-O’Day also did not respond to four court of appeals orders seeking the status of the case. The court of appeals imposed escalating sanctions totaling $1,050 and barred him from practicing before that court until he paid the sanctions and filed the motion. Meyer-O’Day had previously received a public reprimand in 2018 and a private reprimand in 2021.
The Court’s Holding
The Wisconsin Supreme Court approved the referee’s findings and conclusions, declared Meyer-O’Day in default, and found that the complaints established six counts of professional misconduct by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence. Although he disputed the charged rule violations, he admitted most of the underlying facts, and his disputed assertions did not contest the core facts supporting the counts.
The court suspended Meyer-O’Day’s Wisconsin law license for 60 days, effective immediately. It concluded that his neglect of postconviction matters and failure to turn over client files caused actual and potential injury to clients’ constitutional and appellate rights, while his disregard of court orders warranted suspension. The court also ordered him to pay $4,144.60 in costs within 60 days and imposed no restitution because the OLR did not seek it.
Key Takeaways
- Failing to file postconviction motions and allowing an appeal deadline to lapse can support lawyer discipline for lack of diligence.
- A lawyer’s failure to provide files after representation ends can violate the duty to protect a former client’s interests.
- Prior similar discipline, multiple offenses, and disregard of court orders supported a 60-day suspension.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that neglect in criminal postconviction representation can endanger fundamental client rights and impose substantial burdens on successor counsel, public defenders, and courts. The court treated those consequences, coupled with repeated missed deadlines and noncompliance with court orders, as requiring a suspension rather than a reprimand.