Vol. 79, No. 10, October
of Lawyer Regulation
(formerly known as the Board of Attorneys
Professional Responsibility), an agency of the Wisconsin Supreme Court
and component of the lawyer regulation system, assists the court in
carrying out its constitutional responsibility to supervise the practice
of law and protect the public from misconduct by persons practicing law
in Wisconsin. The Office of Lawyer Regulation has offices located at
Suite 315, 110 E. Main St., Madison, WI 53703.
Disciplinary proceeding against Steven W. Van
The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law license of Steven W.
Van Liew, Minneapolis, Minn., for 90 days, effective July 25, 2006, as
discipline reciprocal to that imposed on Van Liew by the Minnesota
Supreme Court on March 31, 2006. Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Van Liew, 2006 WI 110.
The 90-day suspension of Van Liew's Minnesota law license resulted
from Van Liew making false statements to a tribunal and his failure to
file an opposition to a motion on behalf of a client in violation of
Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC) 3.3(a)(1) (a lawyer shall
not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal, or
fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously
made to the tribunal by the lawyer); MRPC 4.1 (in the course of
representing a client, a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false
statement of fact or law); and MRPC 8.4(c) and (d) (it is professional
misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty,
fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, and for a lawyer to engage in
conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice).
Top of page
Hearing to reinstate Nancy A. Schlieve
On Jan. 16, 2007, at 10 a.m., a public hearing will be held before
referee Konrad Tuchscherer at the Eau Claire County Courthouse, Room
2550, 721 Oxford Ave., Eau Claire, on the petition of Nancy A. Schlieve,
Eau Claire, to reinstate her law license. Any interested person may
appear at the hearing and be heard in support of, or in opposition to,
the petition for reinstatement.
Schlieve's license was indefinitely suspended by the Wisconsin
Supreme Court due to a medical incapacity on Oct. 15, 1998. Medical
Incapacity Proceedings Against Schlieve, 221 Wis. 2d 610, 585
N.W.2d 585. Schlieve's conduct leading to her medical incapacity
suspension occurred when she failed to perform her duties as an attorney
in a manner acceptable to professional standards, which resulted in
danger to her clients and to the public. The court determined that the
seriousness of Schlieve's misconduct established in the proceeding and
its relation to her medical incapacity required the indefinite
suspension of her law license until she could establish that she no
longer had a medical incapacity that interfered with her practice of law
and that she did not present a danger to clients, the courts, and the
To be reinstated, Schlieve must substantiate by clear, satisfactory,
and convincing evidence that the medical incapacity has been removed and
that she is fit to resume the practice of law, with or without
Relevant information may be provided to or obtained from Office of
Lawyer Regulation (OLR) investigator Melody Rader-Johnson or assistant
litigation counsel Julie M. Falk, 110 E. Main St., Suite 315, Madison,
WI 53703, (877) 315-6941.
Top of page
Hearing to reinstate Carlos A.
On Nov. 17, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., a public hearing will be held before
referee Currie First at the offices of Hodan, Doster & Ganzer S.C.,
7161 N. Port Washington Rd., Milwaukee, on the petition of Carlos A.
Gamiño, Waukesha, to reinstate his law license. Any interested
person may appear at the hearing and be heard in support of, or in
opposition to, the petition for reinstatement.
On Dec. 20, 2005, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended Gamiño's
law license Wisconsin for six months, effective Jan. 24, 2006.
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Gamiño, 2005 WI 168. A
woman hired Gamiño to represent her minor son in a juvenile
proceeding. Gamiño and the woman shortly thereafter engaged in
sexual relations. Gamiño's representation of the woman's son was
potentially limited by his personal interests. At a circuit court
hearing, Gamiño testified falsely regarding his sexual relationship
with the woman. Further, Gamiño made misrepresentations on the same
subject to the OLR. In a separate matter, Gamiño engaged in
prohibited sexual relations with another client.
Following the six-month suspension case, the court in April 2006
publicly reprimanded Gamiño for misconduct consisting of failure to
act with reasonable diligence, failure to immediately refund unearned
fees, contacting a client after receiving notice successor counsel had
been retained, and committing a trust account violation.
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Gamiño, 2006 WI 32.
To be reinstated, Gamiño must substantiate by clear,
satisfactory, and convincing evidence that, among other things, he has
the moral character to practice law in Wisconsin and all of the
representations he made in his reinstatement petition are
Relevant information may be provided to or obtained from OLR retained
counsel Robert Krohn, 24 N. Henry St., Edgerton, WI 53534, (608)
Top of page
Disciplinary proceeding against Terry L.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law license of Terry L.
Nussberger, Ladysmith, for 60 days, effective Sept. 11, 2006, and
ordered him to pay the full cost of the disciplinary proceeding.
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Nussberger, 2006 WI 111. The
suspension resulted from Nussberger's violation of SCR 20:1.2(d) for
counseling a client to engage in criminal or fraudulent conduct.
Nussberger represented the estate of a woman who had received
governmental assistance during her lifetime. The estate's only asset was
the woman's home, and the estate was obligated to pay the sale proceeds
to the government. Nussberger suggested to the decedent's daughter that
she could receive some funds from the estate if Nussberger padded his
legal bill and they split the extra fees. The daughter was troubled by
this suggestion and contacted the police, who arranged for her to wear
an electronic recording device. At their next recorded meeting
Nussberger repeated the suggestion. The proposal did not go forward.
In imposing the suspension, the court noted that Nussberger had
previously received a public reprimand for making misrepresentations and
had been in the process of finalizing that reprimand when he engaged in
the instant misconduct.
Top of page