Vol. 77, No. 4, April 2004

Lawyer Discipline

• Disciplinary Proceeding against Mark E. Converse
• Disciplinary Proceeding against Michael J. Collins
• Disciplinary Proceedings against Leo Barron Hicks
• Public Reprimand of Leroy Jones

Disciplinary Proceeding against Mark E. Converse

The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law license of Mark E. Converse, 55, Green Bay, for 90 days, effective March 31, 2004. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Converse, 2004 WI 10. Converse stipulated to his commission of the misconduct charged by the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR), but contested the 90-day license suspension sought by the OLR. Converse's misconduct related to two client matters.

In the first matter, a man who was serving six years in prison hired Converse to file an appellate brief. Converse never filed a brief, even though he told the client that there were grounds upon which to pursue an appeal. After the court of appeals dismissed the client's criminal appeal for failure to file a brief, Converse led the client to believe he was still working on the brief. However, Converse abandoned the appeal without the client's knowledge or consent and never filed either a motion to withdraw from the case or a no-merit report. The client eventually succeeded in having the original appeal reinstated and in obtaining new appellate counsel.

The client filed a grievance against Converse. Converse initially failed to respond to letters from the OLR.

By failing to file an appellate brief, Converse violated SCR 20:1.3. By repeatedly assuring the client that he was working on the brief and by providing false explanations as to why the brief was not finished, when, in fact, he was not working on it, Converse violated SCR 20:8.4(c). By failing to respond to the OLR's letters, Converse violated SCR 21.15(4), 22.03(2), and 22.03(6).

In the second matter, a client hired Converse to represent him in two civil matters. One matter involved the client's claim that a person had converted funds from him, and the second matter was a worker's compensation case. Converse told the client his customary fee would be in the range of 20 to 25 percent of any recovery. While Converse's fee in the worker's compensation case was determined by statute, Converse did not reduce to writing a contingent fee agreement for the civil law suit. Converse also failed to respond to the OLR's letters requesting a reply to the client's grievance.

By failing to reduce a contingent fee agreement to writing, Converse violated SCR 20:1.5(c). By failing to respond to the OLR's requests for information, Converse again violated SCR 21.15(4), 22.03(2), and 22.03(6).

In addition to imposing the 90-day license suspension, the court ordered Converse to pay the $3,332.29 costs of the proceeding.

This is the fourth time that Converse has been disciplined. In 1985 he received a public reprimand for neglect and committing a conflict of interest. In 1992 he was again publicly reprimanded for failing to diligently pursue a client's criminal appeal and failing to turn over the client's file to new counsel. Converse also was ordered to perform 200 hours of pro bono legal work. In 1994 Converse's license was suspended for 60 days for failing to timely file federal and state income tax returns.

Top of page

Disciplinary Proceeding against Michael J. Collins

The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law license of Michael J. Collins, 52, Madison, for 60 days, effective March 18, 2004. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Collins, 2004 WI 9. The court approved a stipulation between Collins and the OLR and found that Collins committed eight counts of misconduct involving three client matters.

In the first matter, Collins represented a man in a divorce. The court required Collins to deposit an insurance settlement check into his trust account and then to make arrangements with a lien holder on the parties' vehicle. Collins did not deposit the check into his trust account, nor did he instruct his client to endorse the check. It was not until four months later and after the lien holder had made collection attempts that the client learned he needed to endorse the check. The client filed a grievance with the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (BAPR), the OLR's predecessor agency. Although Collins initially responded to BAPR's letters, he later failed to provide additional information that BAPR requested.

By failing to deposit the settlement check into his trust account, Collins violated SCR 20:1.15(a). By failing to promptly deliver the funds to the lien holder, despite the court's temporary order, Collins violated SCR 20:1.15(b). By failing to promptly handle the check or make past due payments to his client's lien holder, Collins violated SCR 20:1.3. By failing to follow the court's order requiring him to deposit the check and contact the lien holder, Collins violated SCR 20:3.4(c). By failing to respond to BAPR's and OLR's requests, Collins violated SCR 21.03(4) (1998), 22.07(3) (1998), 22.04(1), 21.15(4), and 22.03(2) (Oct. 1, 2000).

In the second matter, Collins represented a woman in a divorce. When the court scheduled a hearing on the husband's motion for a date for completing a property exchange, Collins intentionally did not timely inform his client of the scheduled hearing because he believed her presence at the hearing might be disruptive. Because the woman did not attend the hearing, Collins did not raise some issues she wanted addressed.

By deliberately not informing his client of a post-divorce hearing, Collins violated SCR 20:1.4(a).

In the third matter, Collins was appointed to act as a minor's guardian. The minor reached his 18th birthday, and Collins was required to file a final guardian report. Collins did not timely file the report. The court scheduled a hearing, but Collins failed to attend. The court scheduled another hearing, but Collins still did not appear. The court also wrote to Collins. When the final report still had not been filed six months after it was due, the court reported Collins' neglect to BAPR. Collins failed to timely provide a response to the grievance.

By failing to timely file a guardianship report and by failing to attend two hearings, Collins violated SCR 20:1.3. By failing to timely respond to requests from BAPR, Collins violated SCR 21.03(4) (1998) and 22.07(2) (1998).

Collins' prior disciplinary history consists of a 1989 public reprimand and a 1995 public reprimand.

Top of page

Disciplinary Proceedings against Leo Barron Hicks

On Feb. 27, 2004, the Wisconsin Supreme Court publicly reprimanded Leo Barron Hicks, who formerly practiced in Madison, but now resides in Texas.

The events giving rise to the misconduct counts against Hicks are detailed within the court's disciplinary order. Essentially, Hicks violated three rules: 1) failing to hold a client's property in trust, separate from the lawyer's own property; 2) failing to take remedial action when he knew of misconduct by another lawyer in his firm; and 3) failing to treat property in which both the lawyer and another person claim interests as trust property until there has been an accounting and severance of their interests.

Hicks formerly practiced in association with Attorney Lauren Brown-Perry. Brown-Perry's license was suspended for misconduct arising out of mishandling of a client's funds. See Disciplinary Proceedings Against Brown-Perry, 2003 WI 151, 267 Wis. 2d 184, 672 N.W.2d 287. Although Brown-Perry performed most, if not all, of that client's legal work, Hicks was found to have had involvement in the matter, by virtue of his signing checks disbursing funds that were improperly deposited into the firm's business account; taking status inquiry calls from the client; and opening a new account in the matter but later removing the client's name from that account and renaming the account as the law firm's IOLTA Trust Account.

In the disciplinary action, Hicks originally filed an answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaim in which he asserted that he lacked knowledge of when Brown-Perry deposited the checks and that he did not become personally aware, nor should he have become aware, that his partner had commingled the client's funds until the OLR's inquiry. Later, however, Hicks stipulated to withdraw his answer, plead no contest, and allow the complaint to serve as the basis for establishing the factual record in the matter.

Hicks argued that the OLR should be estopped from requesting a costs assessment because, before the complaint was filed, the OLR offered Hicks the opportunity to consent to a public reprimand and informed him that if he consented, no costs would be sought. The OLR responded that although it did offer Hicks the opportunity to resolve the matter without costs prior to the filing of the complaint, Hicks declined at that time and thereafter litigated the case nearly up to the scheduled hearing date. The court assessed all of the disciplinary proceeding costs against Hicks, pointing out that Hicks chose to litigate the matter, and the OLR's incurred costs are therefore appropriately assessed against him.

Hicks's Wisconsin law license has been under suspension since the fall of 2001 for failure to pay State Bar dues and since mid-2002 for failure to comply with mandatory CLE reporting requirements.

Top of page

Public Reprimand of Leroy Jones

The OLR and Leroy Jones, 75, Milwaukee, entered into an agreement for imposition of a public reprimand pursuant to SCR 22.09(1). A referee appointed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court approved the agreement, and issued the public reprimand on Feb. 19, 2004, in accordance with SCR 22.09(3). The reprimand is based upon Jones's conduct in one matter.

A man retained Jones to defend him on criminal charges stemming from an altercation he had with correctional officers. The client was represented by a public defender but was not satisfied with the representation. The client paid Jones $1,500.

Trial was set for a day Jones was scheduled to be out of the state. He told his client he would attempt to obtain an adjournment but would be unable to represent him if he could not do so. Jones wrote to the district attorney's office and informed the office that he had been retained and was requesting an adjournment. He did not send a Notice of Retainer or a Request for Adjournment to the court. Jones then spoke with someone in the district attorney's office and, based upon information he received during that conversation, told his client he was almost certain he would not be able to get an adjournment.

Jones did no trial preparation and went out of state as planned. On the eve of trial, his staff sent a Notice of Retainer and Request for Adjournment to the court. The client was unaware these documents had not previously been filed.

Because he had not been removed from the case, the public defender had prepared for the trial. The public defender represented the client at trial. After the client was convicted, his girlfriend spoke with Jones about representing him in his appeal and gave him an additional $400. Jones did no work on the appeal and failed to respond to the client's inquiries about the matter.

During his initial meeting with Jones, the client had also discussed bringing a civil action against the correctional officers involved in the altercation. Jones told him he did not believe he would be successful but agreed to look into the matter. Jones did no work and did not inform the client that he would not be pursuing the matter, despite at least one inquiry as to the status of the matter.

After a grievance was filed, Jones issued a full refund to the client and his girlfriend. By failing to timely file a Notice of Retainer and Request for Adjournment with the court, Jones failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3. By failing to inform his client that he had not obtained an adjournment of his trial, Jones failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a).

By failing to take any steps to advance his client's appeal, Jones failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3. By failing to respond to his client's inquiries regarding his appeal, Jones failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a).

By failing to take any steps to advance the civil matter, Jones failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness, in violation of SCR 20:1.3. By failing to inform his client that he would not be pursuing the civil matter and by failing to respond to his client's inquiry regarding his civil matter, Jones failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a).

Jones previously was publicly reprimanded in 1984, 1990, 1991, and 1998. Moreover, his license was suspended for 60 days in 1991. In 1992, his license was again suspended for 60 days, retroactive to mid-1991. A third 60-day suspension was imposed in 1993. His misconduct in these prior matters consisted of lack of diligence, failure to communicate, mishandling of trust accounts, failure to cooperate, and making a false statement of fact during a disciplinary proceeding.

Top of page

Wisconsin Lawyer