Vol. 79, No. 2, February
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.
Medical incapacity proceeding against Daniel
On Nov. 11, 2005, the Wisconsin Supreme Court adopted a stipulation
between the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Daniel Ensley, 56,
Appleton, and indefinitely suspended Ensley's law license due to
Ensley's medical incapacity. Ensley had provided evidence of the medical
incapacity and acknowledged that his condition substantially prevents
him from performing his duties as a lawyer. He further stipulated that,
as a result of that medical incapacity, he failed to abide by supreme
court rules in several matters. Medical Incapacity Proceedings
Against Ensley, 2005 WI 156.
Disciplinary proceedings against Lynn E.
On Dec. 20, 2005, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law
license of Lynn E. Morrissey, 55, Hartford, for six months and ordered
Morrissey to pay the $1,868.03 cost of the proceeding. The order was
based on a referee-approved stipulation between Morrissey and the OLR as
to 11 misconduct counts in four client matters. Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Morrissey, 2005 WI 169.
In the first matter, Morrissey failed to timely prepare the findings
of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment in a divorce action, requiring
opposing counsel to prepare the document at an additional cost to
Morrissey's client. Morrissey's failure to act with reasonable diligence
and promptness was contrary to SCR 20:1.3.
In the second matter, Morrissey requested that her client's Social
Security disability hearing be held open so that she could submit
further evidence, which she then failed to submit. A delayed but
favorable decision was later issued. The Social Security Administration
withheld $4,629 from the award to cover potential legal fees. Pursuant
to a fee agreement, Morrissey was entitled to $4,000 of that amount, and
her client was owed the $629 balance. Morrissey failed to apply for
payment for more than two years despite numerous client efforts to get
her to act. The entire $4,629 was eventually awarded to the client.
Morrissey's neglect in this case was in violation of SCR 20:1.3.
In the third matter, a widow gave Morrissey original documents,
including a will, for the purpose of probating her late husband's
estate. Morrissey subsequently informed the potential client that she
was too ill to undertake the representation. Morrissey never returned
the original documents and failed to respond to the widow's phone
contacts. The conduct in this matter violated SCR 20:1.4(a) and
The final matter involved a probate estate in which Morrissey failed
to file a final account and failed to respond to the court's orders to
show cause. Morrissey was found in contempt of court and ordered to
surrender her file for reassignment to another attorney, but she failed
to do so. Morrissey thereby failed to act with reasonable diligence,
contrary to SCR 20:1.3, and knowingly disobeyed her obligations under
the rules of a tribunal, contrary to SCR 20:3.4(c).
Morrissey also failed to cooperate with the OLR's investigation of
each of these four matters, contrary to SCR 22.03(2) and 22.03(6).
Morrissey's law license had previously been suspended for 60 days,
which suspension remained in effect at the time of the court's
Disciplinary proceedings against David J.
On Dec. 13, 2005, the Wisconsin Supreme Court publicly reprimanded
David J. Winkel, 46, Neenah, ordered him to make restitution in the
amount of $934, and ordered him to pay the $9,007.45 cost of the
disciplinary proceeding. Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Winkel, 2005 WI 165.
Winkel's clients had originally signed a fee agreement with Winkel's
firm for representation on a tax matter at an hourly rate. Winkel's
associate subsequently represented the clients on a Social Security
disability claim. Shortly after benefits were awarded but before they
were paid, the associate left Winkel's firm. Although Winkel had
understood the disability representation was being handled on a
contingent fee basis, no contingent fee agreement could be located nor
had one been submitted to the Social Security Administration (SSA).
Winkel therefore had to submit a fee petition to the SSA that included
an itemized hourly statement. Rather than using the time previously
reported by the associate, Winkel "reconstructed" a statement by
allegedly estimating the time he would have taken to perform the same
tasks. Although Winkel was more experienced than his associate, Winkel's
reconstructed statement showed 30 billable hours, while the original
invoices had only totaled 12.8 hours.
Winkel then met with the clients, showed them the hourly statement,
and told them he was willing to take a 25 percent contingent fee, which
was less than the hourly fee Winkel had calculated. The clients signed
the fee petition, agreeing to pay Winkel the contingent fee. The
petition, along with Winkel's reconstructed hourly statement, was
submitted to the SSA, which approved the contingent fee. Only later did
the clients become aware of the discrepancies between Winkel's
reconstructed statement and prior invoices they had received.
By creating a billing statement that more than doubled the hours
previously entered by his associate, without adequate explanation,
Winkel misrepresented his firm's hourly fees to the SSA, in violation of
SCR 20:8.4(c). Because Winkel was paid $934 more in the matter than he
would have received for an accurate hourly fee recital, the supreme
court ordered Winkel to pay restitution to the clients in that
Winkel was previously publicly reprimanded by the court in 1998.
Disciplinary proceedings against Donald A.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the Wisconsin law license of
Donald A. Hoffman, Louisiana, for three months, effective Nov. 11, 2005,
as discipline reciprocal to a three-month deferred suspension imposed on
Hoffman by the Louisiana Supreme Court. Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Hoffman, 2005 WI 154.
Hoffman's Louisiana discipline was based on the Louisiana Supreme
Court's findings that he violated Louisiana Rules of Professional
Conduct: Rules 1.4 (failure to communicate with a client); 1.8(g)
(conflict of interest/aggregate settlement of claims of two or more
clients); and 8.4(a) (violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct).
Also, Hoffman had failed to comply with Wisconsin's SCR 22.22(1), which
requires an attorney publicly disciplined in another jurisdiction to
notify the OLR of that discipline within 20 days of the discipline
order's effective date.
Public reprimand of Seth Hartigan
On Dec. 13, 2005, the Wisconsin Supreme Court adopted a referee's
findings of fact and conclusions of law and determined that Seth
Hartigan, Minneapolis, should be publicly reprimanded for six counts of
misconduct and should be ordered to pay the costs of the disciplinary
proceedings. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hartigan, 2005 WI
Hartigan was appointed by the State Public Defender (SPD) to
represent T.H. at a parole revocation hearing. Hartigan failed to
communicate with T.H. before the hearing date and failed to appear for
the hearing. The hearing was subsequently rescheduled. By failing to
communicate with his client before her hearing, Hartigan failed to keep
his client reasonably informed of the status of a matter in violation of
Hartigan was appointed by the SPD to represent K.S. at a probation
revocation hearing. Pursuant to K.S.'s request, Hartigan requested an
adjournment of the hearing. His request was denied. Hartigan failed to
appear at the originally scheduled hearing. The hearing was subsequently
adjourned twice but Hartigan failed to appear both times.
When the administrative law judge spoke with Hartigan about the
missed hearings, Hartigan asserted that, because he had not attended a
required course, he had not been recertified by the SPD and, therefore,
could no longer represent K.S. However, Hartigan had received a letter
stating his certification was valid through December 2003.
Hartigan spoke with K.S. before the first scheduled hearing. K.S.
asserts that this was the only communication he had with Hartigan.
Hartigan also failed to provide successor counsel with a copy of his
file. During the course of the investigation of this matter, Hartigan
failed to appear for a scheduled meeting with committee
By failing to appear at K.S.'s hearings, Hartigan failed to act with
reasonable diligence, in violation of SCR 20:1.3. By failing to
communicate with K.S. regarding the status of his hearings and by
failing to inform K.S. that he believed he could no longer represent
him, Hartigan failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the
status of the matter in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a). By failing to inform
K.S. that he could no longer represent him and by failing to turn over
K.S.'s file to successor counsel, Hartigan failed, on termination of
representation, to protect his client's interests, in violation of SCR
20:1.16(d). By failing to appear at an interview with the OLR's district
committee investigators, Hartigan failed to cooperate with the OLR's
investigation in violation of SCR 22.04(1).
In June 2003, M.B. retained Hartigan, then an associate with a law
firm, to represent him. Effective Aug. 18, 2003, Hartigan was terminated
from his job. M.B.'s trial was scheduled for Sept. 17, 2003. That
morning, Hartigan requested an adjournment on the ground that he was
waiting for M.B.'s file to be transferred from his old firm. A new trial
date was set for Dec. 3, 2003.
Under cover of a letter dated Sept. 24, 2003, M.B.'s file was
forwarded to Hartigan. However, Hartigan did not appear at M.B.'s
adjourned trial. The trial was again adjourned. The judge's clerk left
messages for Hartigan, informing him of the new trial date. Hartigan,
however, again failed to appear. M.B. subsequently stated to the court
that Hartigan had sent a letter stating that he had not appeared at the
scheduled trial dates because he needed more money to continue the
representation. However, Hartigan did not file a motion to withdraw and
never notified opposing counsel or the court of his intention not to
By failing to notify M.B., the court, or opposing counsel of his
intention not to appear at trial and by failing to file a motion to
withdraw, Hartigan failed, on termination of representation, to protect
his client's interests, in violation of SCR 20:1.16(d).
In January 2005, Hartigan's law license was suspended for six months.
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hartigan, 2005 WI 3. Hartigan
has not petitioned for reinstatement and, as a result, his law license
Revocation of Charles K. Krombach
On Dec. 22, 2005, the Wisconsin Supreme Court revoked the law license
of Charles K. Krombach, 53, Brookfield. Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Krombach, 2005 WI 170. Krombach represented a man and his
two sons in forming a limited liability company (LLC) for the purpose of
subdividing and selling a parcel of land. The LLC borrowed development
funds that were then deposited to Krombach's trust account. Krombach
made several disbursements from the LLC's funds payable to "Cash" that
he claimed to have delivered to the father and to himself for legal
matters involving the father personally. The loan proceeds were
eventually depleted, with Krombach receiving nearly $26,000 of the
The property was sold without being developed, and $50,000 in sale
proceeds was deposited to a money market account that Krombach
controlled on behalf of the LLC. Krombach wrote himself checks from
these funds that were not justified by any fee statements and that were
not authorized by the LLC. Krombach wrote checks to himself that he
alleged were used to give cash to the father, but he had no receipts to
establish that the father received the cash. Some of Krombach's check
stubs falsely showed that checks were voided when they were not, and
notations were added to cancelled checks presented to the OLR that were
not present when the checks were cashed.
Six months after the property was sold, the father died.
Approximately $12,700 remained of the sale proceeds. Three days after
the man's death, Krombach wrote himself a $5,000 check from the LLC
funds. Krombach told the OLR that $3,500 of the check proceeds was paid
in cash to the man. Krombach fraudulently backdated the accounting and
check stubs to make it appear that the check was written before the
man's death. Krombach paid the rest of the sale proceeds to himself,
subsequently claiming that he was entitled to fees for such things as
attending the man's funeral and sending flowers, and to a retroactive
hourly-rate increase that he claimed the man had authorized. When the
attorney handling the man's estate contacted Krombach about estate
assets in his possession, Krombach at first failed to respond, then
asserted there had been no money left and that the estate actually owed
Krombach fees that he was willing to forgive.
Krombach stipulated to the facts alleged in the disciplinary
complaint filed by the OLR but nevertheless argued that all payments he
had received were authorized by the client and that no restitution was
owed. The court concluded that Krombach's multiple disbursements to
himself constituted conversion of client funds, and Krombach therefore
violated SCR 20:8.4(c); his withdrawal of claimed fees without the
clients' consent violated SCR 20:1.15(d) (pre-July 1, 2004 rule); his
false accountings and provision of altered documents to the OLR violated
SCR 22.03(6); his failure to respond to requests for an accounting from
LLC members violated SCR 20:1.15(b) (pre-July 1, 2004 rule); and his
cash disbursements from trust account funds violated SCR 20:1.15(e)(ii)
(pre-July 1, 2004 rule). The court ordered Krombach to pay $27,135 in
restitution to the LLC or its remaining members and then to pay the full
$10,193.18 cost of the disciplinary proceeding.
Disciplinary proceedings against Carlos A.
On Dec. 20, 2005, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law
license of Carlos A. Gamiño, 33, Waukesha, for six months,
effective Jan. 24, 2006. Gamiño was further ordered to pay the
$19,437.35 cost of the disciplinary proceeding. 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, and Gamiño thereby
violated SCR 20:1.7(b).
Gamiño provided post-sentencing representation to the same woman
in a criminal case. The woman ultimately claimed she was entitled to
postconviction relief and new counsel on the ground that Gamiño had
engaged in sexual relations with her during the representation. At a
circuit court hearing in the matter, Gamiño testified falsely
regarding his sexual relationship with the woman, contrary to SCR
20:3.3(a)(1). Gamiño further made misrepresentations on the same
subject to OLR staff and a district investigative committee, contrary to
SCR 22.03(6) and 20:8.4(f).
Another woman hired Gamiño to represent her in a drunk driving
case and in several additional matters. The woman and Gamiño had no
connection before the legal representation. Gamiño and the woman
engaged in sexual relations while Gamiño was her attorney, and
Gamiño thereby violated SCR 20:1.8(k)(2).
Gamiño had no prior professional discipline.
Disciplinary proceedings against Edwin W.
On Dec. 13, 2005, the Wisconsin Supreme Court revoked the law license
of Edwin Conmey, 63, Oconomowoc, effective Jan. 24, 2006, for misconduct
in two separate probate cases. Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Conmey, 2005 WI 166. The court also ordered Conmey to repay the
Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection the sum of $67,338.61 plus
interest for a claim the fund had paid to reimburse one of the estates.
The court further ordered Conmey to pay the $9,963.35 cost of the
In the first estate, Conmey had prepared an individual's last will
and testament that appointed Conmey as personal representative of the
estate and provided that he would serve without bond. The individual
died in March 1995, and Conmey was appointed as personal representative
in May 1995. Conmey remained as personal representative and attorney for
the estate until September 2001.
In less than two years during his handling of the estate, Conmey
distributed more than $97,000 of estate funds to himself for fees. The
probate court held a hearing in May 2000 regarding Conmey's personal
representative and attorney fees. The probate court concluded that
Conmey had earned attorney fees of $21,875 and personal representative
fees of $8,645. The probate court ordered Conmey to repay the estate
$67,338 of excess fees that he had taken without court approval.
During the May 2000 hearing, the probate court found that the estate
should have been closed in 1997. Conmey was ordered to file all closing
documents within 30 days. Conmey, however, failed to complete the
estate, despite receiving extensions from the probate court. Conmey also
failed to repay the funds. In September 2001, the probate court
discharged Conmey as personal representative and appointed another
attorney as successor personal representative. The new personal
representative filed a civil action in circuit court on the estate's
behalf, alleging that Conmey had converted $67,338 from the estate. The
circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the estate and
awarded the estate $67,338.
A claim by the estate for treble damages was tried to a jury in
October 2002 and the jury found that Conmey had taken the money with the
intent to convert the funds to his own use. Judgment was entered against
Conmey in November 2002 for $179,704. Of that amount, $67,388 was
awarded to the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection, which had
paid that amount to the estate after determining that Conmey had acted
dishonestly. The balance of the judgment was awarded to the estate.
Conmey has paid less than $2,500 on the judgment.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court concluded that Conmey failed to act with
reasonable diligence, contrary to SCR 20:1.3; that he charged an
unreasonable fee, contrary to SCR 20:1.5(a); that he failed to hold the
estate funds as trust property, as required by SCR 20:1.15(d); and that
by converting funds from the estate, Conmey engaged in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation, contrary to SCR
In a second estate, Conmey was appointed as the personal
representative in July 1998. Beginning in January 2000, and after
receiving a delinquency notice, Conmey repeatedly requested and received
extensions to close the estate, saying he needed time to do tax returns
and obtain closing documents. When Conmey filed the final account in
November 2000, he indicated that he had received $8,997 for attorney
fees, and he also listed $7,856 to be paid to him for personal
The register in probate objected to Conmey taking both attorney fees
and personal representative fees without court approval. Rather than
petition the probate court to allow both fees, Conmey said he would take
only the personal representative fee and would not retain the attorney
fee. In February 2001, Conmey informed the probate court he would close
the estate within 30 days. In a hearing in May 2001, Conmey agreed to
refund the $8,997 he had previously paid himself. The probate court
required Conmey to file amended closing documents. In June and September
2001, Conmey told the court he was waiting for a new closing
While the estate remained open, the probate court held monthly status
hearings from November 2001 to March 2002. In March 2002, Conmey sent
final distribution checks to the estate's three beneficiaries for the
$8,997 he had previously paid himself for attorney fees. The checks were
issued from Conmey's business checking account, and two of those checks
bounced. The checks ultimately cleared by early June 2002.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court concluded that Conmey failed to act with
reasonable diligence, contrary to SCR 20:1.3, and that in disbursing
estate funds to himself without court approval, Conmey violated Wis.
Stat. section 857.05(3), enforceable through SCR 20:8.4(f). The court
further concluded that in issuing refund checks without sufficient funds
to clear the account, Conmey violated SCR 20:8.4(c).
Conmey had not previously been the subject of a disciplinary
Disciplinary proceedings against Jennifer L.
On Dec. 28, 2005, the Wisconsin Supreme Court revoked the law license
of Jennifer L. Abbott, 43, Milwaukee, ordered Abbott to make restitution
to three clients, and required her to pay the costs of the disciplinary
proceeding. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Abbott, 2005 WI
172. During the proceeding, Abbott filed a petition for consensual
license revocation, stating that she was unable to defend against the
misconduct allegations of the OLR's disciplinary complaint and that she
was unable to defend pending uncharged misconduct allegations that the
OLR was investigating.
Abbott's revocation was based on numerous allegations of misconduct
relating to multiple client matters, including conversion of $18,500
from an estate in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c) and former SCR 20:1.15(a)
(now SCR 20:1.15(b)). Other misconduct included a violation of SCR
20:1.4(a) consisting of failing to provide a client with a copy of his
appellate brief in a criminal matter, despite numerous written requests;
failing to respond to requests from another client and the SPD's office
for a transcript of a hearing in that client's case and failing to
comply with court orders requiring her to provide the transcript to the
client, contrary to SCR 20:1.16(d) and SCR 20:3.4(c); failing to return
a third client's file to the SPD's office despite court orders requiring
her to do so, in violation of SCR 20:3.4(c); failing to notify a fourth
client that she would not pursue an appeal in a visitation case and
failing to return two boxes of records to that client, in violation of
SCR 20:1.16(d); failing to commence bankruptcy proceedings on behalf of
three separate clients, after accepting retainers, contrary to SCR
20:1.3; failing to return records to two of those bankruptcy clients and
failing to refund the retainer fees paid by all three clients, in
violation of SCR 20:1.16(d); failing to prepare for a client's trial on
criminal charges and failing to respond to the client's multiple
requests for information, in violation of SCR 20:1.3 and 20:1.4(a);
failing to cooperate with the OLR's investigation of four separate
matters, contrary to SCR 22.03(6) and SCR 20:8.4(f); and failing to file
an overdraft notification agreement relating to her trust account, in
violation of former SCR 20:1.15(n) (now SCR 20:1.15(h)(8)).
The additional allegations of misconduct under investigation, which
Abbott stated she was unable to defend, included 10 overdrafts of her
trust account; an alleged failure to preserve evidence and arrange for
testimony from a key witness in a client's operating while intoxicated
matter; and an alleged failure to contact a client's creditor in an
adversary proceeding, which ultimately led to a default judgment against
Abbott's license had been suspended since May 12, 2004, based on her
willful failure to cooperate with several OLR investigations.
Medical incapacity proceeding against John
On Dec. 14, 2005, the Wisconsin Supreme Court entered an order
indefinitely suspending the law license of John A. Chavez, 44,
Cambridge, due to medical incapacity. Medical Incapacity Proceedings
Against Chavez, 2005 WI 167.
On Oct. 7, 2005, Chavez and the OLR had entered into a stipulation,
pursuant to SCR 22.34(1), which contained evidence of Chavez's medical
incapacity and requested entry of an order indefinitely suspending his
Chavez's law license had been suspended since Nov. 17, 2004, due to
his failure to cooperate in an OLR grievance investigation.
Disciplinary proceedings against David L.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law license of David L.
DenHartigh, Salem, Ore., for 90 days, effective Nov. 11, 2005, as
discipline reciprocal to that imposed on DenHartigh by the Oregon
Supreme Court in July 2005.
The 90-day suspension of DenHartigh's Oregon law license resulted
from DenHartigh's neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him, failure to
carry out a contract of employment entered into with a client for
professional services, failure to maintain client funds in trust, and
failure to maintain complete records of all funds, securities, and other
properties of a client coming into DenHartigh's possession and to render
appropriate accounts to his client regarding them.
Hearing to reinstate Gregory R. Lang
On March 16, 2006, at 10 a.m., a public hearing will be held before
referee Kim M. Peterson at the offices of Eiche & Frankes, 2600 N.
Mayfair Rd., Suite 250, Milwaukee, Wis., on the petition of Gregory R.
Lang, Milwaukee, to reinstate his law license. Any interested person may
appear at the hearing and be heard in support of, or in opposition to,
In 1997 Lang's Wisconsin law license became inactive. In 2000 the
Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended Lang's license due to his nonpayment
of State Bar dues. In 2002, Lang voluntarily resigned from the State Bar
of Wisconsin. On March 7, 2005, Lang filed a petition for reinstatement
under SCR 10.03. The OLR reinstatement investigation revealed that Lang
may have engaged in the practice of law by performing research and
writing legal memoranda during his suspension and that Lang also may
have engaged in the outside practice of law while he worked at the
Wisconsin SPD's office from 1990 to 1996, by meeting with another
attorney's clients, discussing legal issues, performing legal research,
or providing legal advice to the attorney and his clients. Based on its
investigation, the OLR conditionally opposes Lang's petition for
By order dated Oct. 24, 2005, the Wisconsin Supreme Court appointed
referee Kim Peterson to hold a reinstatement hearing to specifically
address whether Lang engaged in the practice of law while his license
was suspended and whether any of Lang's activities while he worked for
the SPD's office violated any SPD office rules.
Relevant information may be provided to or obtained from OLR
investigator Emily E. Kokie or OLR assistant litigation counsel Julie M.
Falk, 110 E. Main St., Suite 315, Madison, WI 53703; or phone toll-free,
Hearing to reinstate Jonathan A. Olson
On March 24, 2006, at 9 a.m., a public hearing will be held before
referee Gene Radcliffe at the County Board Room, Second Floor, Outagamie
County Administrative Building, 410 S. Walnut St., Appleton, Wis., on
the petition of Jonathan A. Olson, DePere, 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.
Olson's license was suspended by the Wisconsin Supreme Court for one
year, effective April 27, 1998. Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Olson, 216 Wis. 2d 482, 574 N.W.2d 245 (1998). The court's order
was based on a stipulation by the Board of Attorneys Professional
Responsibility (BAPR) (now the OLR) and Olson as to the facts,
conclusions of law, and discipline, pursuant to SCR 21.09 (3m).
In April 1997, Olson's law firm discovered that Olson had written
checks for personal expenses on the firm's account and had taken
advances and salary payments that had not been authorized or matched by
payments to the other firm partners. Olson subsequently was charged with
and convicted of one count of theft, a Class C felony. The criminal
complaint identified 13 unauthorized law firm checks totaling $11,250
that Olson had taken. The parties stipulated that Olson's conduct
violated SCR 20:8.4(c), which proscribes conduct involving dishonesty,
and that his criminal conviction constituted a violation of SCR
20:8.4(b), which proscribes criminal conduct that reflects adversely on
a lawyer's honesty.
To be reinstated, Olson must substantiate by clear, satisfactory, and
convincing evidence that, among other things, he has not practiced law
during the suspension; he has maintained competence and learning in the
law by attendance at identified educational activities; his conduct
since the suspension has been exemplary and above reproach; he has a
proper understanding of and attitude toward the standards that are
imposed on members of the bar and will act in conformity with the
standards; he can safely be recommended to the legal profession, the
courts, and the public as a person fit to be consulted by others, to
represent them and otherwise act in matters of trust and confidence, and
in general to aid in the administration of justice as a member of the
bar and as an officer of the courts; he has fully described all of his
business activities during the suspension; and he has made restitution
to or settled all claims of persons injured or harmed by his
Olson also must demonstrate by clear, satisfactory, and convincing
evidence that he has the moral character to practice law in Wisconsin,
that his resumption of the practice of law will not be detrimental to
the administration of justice or subversive of the public interest, and
that he has fully complied with the terms of the suspension order and
with the requirements of SCR 22.26.
Relevant information may be provided to or obtained from OLR
investigator Nancy Warner, 110 E. Main St., Suite 315, Madison, WI
53703, or OLR retained counsel Paul M. Schwarzenbart, Lee, Kilkelly,
Paulson & Younger SC, P.O. Box 2189, Madison, WI 53701-2189; or
phone the OLR toll-free, (877) 315-6941.