Wisconsin Lawyer: Lawyer Discipline:

State Bar of Wisconsin

Sign In

Top Link Bar

    WisBar.org may be unavailable October 23rd from 5:00PM until 10:00PM for system maintenance.

    Wisconsin LawyerWisconsin Lawyer

News & Pubs Search

Advanced

    Lawyer Discipline

    Share This:

    Wisconsin LawyerWisconsin Lawyer
    Vol. 79, No. 2, February 2006

    Lawyer Discipline

    The Office 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 Ensley

    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. Morrissey

    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 20:1.16(d).

    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 order.

    Disciplinary proceedings against David J. Winkel

    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 amount.

    Winkel was previously publicly reprimanded by the court in 1998.

    Disciplinary proceedings against Donald A. Hoffman

    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 164.

    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 SCR 20:1.4(a).

    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 investigators.

    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 appear.

    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 remains suspended.

    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 original $45,610.

    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. Gamiño

    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. Conmey

    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 disciplinary proceeding.

    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 20:8.4(c).

    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 representative fees.

    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 certificate.

    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 action.

    Disciplinary proceedings against Jennifer L. Abbott

    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 the client.

    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 A. Chavez

    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 license.

    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. DenHartigh

    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, the petition.

    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 reinstatement.

    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, (877) 315-6941.

    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 misconduct.

    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.




To view or add comment, Login