Wisconsin Lawyer
Vol. 79, No. 8, August
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.
Disciplinary proceeding against
Joe E. Kremkoski
On June 2, 2006, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued Joe E. Kremkoski,
Kenosha, a public reprimand based on his misconduct
in two client matters. Kremkoski stipulated to the misconduct and to
the imposition of a public reprimand. The referee reviewing
the matter agreed that a public reprimand was appropriate. The court,
after considering the Office of Lawyer Regulation's
(OLR) response to its order to show cause why Kremkoski should not be
suspended, agreed that a public reprimand was
appropriate. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kremkoski, 2006
WI 59.
In the first matter, Kremkoski represented a client who was
attempting to gain restitution from a former employer for
damages the client paid in connection with a car crash that occurred
while the client was driving a vehicle owned by the employer. The
client learned after the accident that the vehicle was not licensed,
registered, or insured. Kremkoski, after seven months and
numerous inquiries from the client and his family, eventually filed
suit on the client's behalf but failed to serve the defendants within
the
90-day period specified by statute. Kremkoski failed to notify the
client that the case was dismissed without prejudice.
Further, although Kremkoski indicated that he would refile the suit, he
never did so. The court determined that Kremkoski violated
SCR 20:1.3 and SCR 20:1.4(a).
In the second matter, Kremkoski represented the defendant in a civil
action in which the plaintiff claimed that he
suffered personal injuries as a result of an altercation with the
defendant. After filing an answer and affirmative defense to the
complaint
and serving the plaintiff with interrogatories, Kremkoski failed in
several respects to adequately prepare his client's defense.
Kremkoski failed to conduct any depositions, failed to attend the
deposition of the plaintiff's expert, failed to obtain certified medical
records related to the plaintiff's preexisting condition, failed to
arrange an independent medical evaluation of the plaintiff, failed
to subpoena any witnesses for trial, and failed to meet with his client
to prepare for trial. Kremkoski's conduct violated SCR
20:1.3, which requires an attorney to act with reasonable diligence and
promptness in representing a client. Kremkoski also violated
SCR 20:1.4(a) by failing to respond to his client's repeated telephone
calls seeking information and by failing to meet with his client as
he requested.
Kremkoski's disciplinary history consisted of a private reprimand in
1997 and a public reprimand in 2004. In imposing the current
public reprimand, the court considered the OLR's position that because
this misconduct occurred soon after or in the midst of the 2004
disciplinary proceeding against Kremkoski that resulted in a public
reprimand, the prior public reprimand was not in this particular case
significantly aggravating to justify a progressively severe sanction.
In addition, Kremkoski fully cooperated with the OLR during the
disciplinary proceeding, and there was no ultimate financial harm to
either client, because Kremkoski had fully reimbursed one client against
whom
the circuit court had levied a monetary sanction.
Disciplinary proceeding against Jay Andrew
Felli
In a decision filed June 22, 2006, the Wisconsin Supreme Court
suspended the law license of Jay Andrew Felli, Brookfield,
for three years, effective July 27, 2006. Disciplinary Proceedings
Against
Felli, 2006 WI 73. The court also ordered Felli to pay
the costs of the proceeding. The disciplinary action filed by the OLR
stemmed from Felli's representation of three elderly clients
in separate estate planning matters. Each client had attended a
financial planning seminar presented by Felli and his financial
planner associates.
In the first matter, Felli prepared trusts for the client that named
Felli as cotrustee and named as trust beneficiary a piano
school belonging to the sister of one of the financial planner
associates. After the client's death, and following Felli's liquidation
of certain trust assets, the school asked to review Felli's records in
the matter. The day after the request was made, Felli informed the
piano school that it was being terminated as a trust beneficiary. The
school was never provided any accountings or records, and it
received no further distributions from the trusts other than a lump sum
payment in settlement of a civil action subsequently brought by
the school. Felli also failed to provide the OLR with requested records
and accountings, and Felli falsely reported to the OLR
that others were recipients of checks that bank records showed were
paid to Felli.
Felli violated SCR 20:7.3(f) by preparing trust documents that named
himself as cotrustee. Felli violated SCR 20:1.7(b) by representing a
client when his professional judgment was influenced by his own
pecuniary interests. Felli violated SCR 22.03(6) by failing to
cooperate with the OLR's investigation. The court concluded there was
insufficient evidence to prove the OLR's allegations that Felli's fee
in the matter was unreasonable or that Felli acted dishonestly by paying
trust
assets to himself.
In the second matter, Felli again violated SCR 20:7.3(f) by preparing
trust documents that named himself as trustee.
Felli violated SCR 20:1.1, which requires an attorney to provide
competent representation, by failing to investigate the suitability of
a charitable remainder trust for the client and by failing to carry out
required trustee duties. Felli violated SCR 20:1.4(b) by failing
to adequately explain to the client the implications of her estate
planning decisions. With respect to this matter, the court
concluded that insufficient evidence was present to prove the OLR's
allegations of lack of diligence, conflict of interest, and conduct
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
In the third matter, Felli violated SCR 20:7.3(f) by preparing a will
that appointed Felli as personal representative of the
client's estate; by preparing a living trust that appointed Felli as
successor trustee upon the client's death or disability; by preparing a
power of attorney that gave Felli immediate authority to handle the
client's financial affairs and authority to immediately act as trustee
of the client's living trust, and that nominated him to serve as
guardian in the event of the client's incapacity; and by preparing
a medical power of attorney that appointed Felli as a health care
agent.
Felli violated SCR 20:1.1 by preparing a will for the client that
gave her assets to a nonexistent living trust; by failing to have
the primary health care agent execute the client's health care power of
attorney; by appointing himself, a stranger to the client,
as proposed guardian, power of attorney, and alternative health care
agent; by using a witness to the health care power of attorney
who falsely stated that he did not have a claim on the client's estate;
and by preparing a trust that Felli acknowledged he expected
the client to change at any time. Felli violated SCR 20:1.7(b) by
preparing estate planning documents under which Felli and a
financial planner, who was a business associate of Felli's, stood to
gain financially from executing the documents. Felli's dealings with
the client also violated SCR 20:8.4(c).
Felli's prior discipline consisted of a 1998 private reprimand and a
public reprimand imposed in 2005.
Hearing to reinstate Charles J.
Hausmann
On Sept. 25, 2006, at 9 a.m., a public hearing will
be held before referee Richard M. Esenberg at the Milwaukee Bar
Center, Cardoza Room, 424 E. Wells St., Milwaukee, on the petition of
Charles J. Hausmann, 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 for reinstatement.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended Hausmann's license for one
year, effective Aug. 30, 2005. Hausmann's misconduct leading to
discipline occurred when he engaged in a conflict of interest by
representing clients when that representation may have been materially
limited by Hausmann's own interests. Without disclosing the arrangement
to his clients, Hausmann had an arrangement to refer clients to a
chiropractor who, in return, wrote checks totaling 20 percent of
Hausmann's clients' chiropractic fees to individuals or organizations as
directed by Hausmann.
Hausmann also committed a criminal act that reflects adversely on a
lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a
lawyer, based on his conviction of federal felony conspiracy to commit
mail and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2314 and
2. Hausmann's engagement with the chiropractor in a "kickback
scheme," which was concealed from the clients, in which
at Hausman's direction the chiropractor wrote checks at Hausmann's
direction that equalled approximately 20 percent of the
medical bills collected by the chiropractic center, deprived his
clients of their intangible right to honest services. As a result of his
conviction, Hausmann was sentenced to two months imprisonment, 16
months of supervised release, and 40 hours of community service.
A more detailed description of Hausmann's misconduct is set forth in
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hausmann, 2005 WI 131,
699 N.W.2d 923.
To be reinstated, Hausmann 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 attending 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.
Hausmann 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 Mary A. Ahlstrom or assistant litigation counsel Julie M.
Falk, 110 E. Main St., Suite 315, Madison, WI 53703,
(877) 315-6941.
Wisconsin Lawyer
