Professional Discipline
Petition to Reinstate Mark J. Brunner
A hearing on the petition of Mark J. Brunner, 40, West Bend, to
reinstate his law license will be held before the District 13
Professional Responsibility Committee on May 9, 1997, at 9 a.m. at the
Washington County Courthouse, Room 1020, 432 E. Washington St., West
Bend, Wis.
Brunner's law license was suspended by the Wisconsin Supreme Court
for 18 months, effective Sept. 1, 1995, as discipline for professional
misconduct. That misconduct consisted of Brunner having represented
personal clients without the knowledge of the law firm at which he was
employed and using the firm's name, computer system and other resources
to do so. In addition to the legal fees he billed to his personal
clients, Brunner retained client expenses the law firm had advanced to
him and his own expenses reimbursed by the firm in those matters.
Brunner is required by Supreme Court Rule 22.28 to establish by clear
and convincing evidence that:
- 1) he desires to have his license reinstated;
- 2) he has not practiced law during the suspension;
- 3) he has complied with the terms of the disciplinary order;
- 4) he has maintained competence and learning in the law;
- 5) his conduct since the discipline has been exemplary and above
reproach;
- 6) he has a proper understanding of and attitude toward the
standards that are imposed upon members of the bar and will act in
conformity with the standards;
- 7) he can safely be recommended to the legal profession, the courts
and the public as a person fit to be consulted by others and 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 court;
- 8) he has made restitution or settled all claims from persons
injured or harmed by his misconduct, or in the event such restitution is
not complete, his explanation of the failure or inability to do so;
- 9) he has indicated the proposed use of the license after
reinstatement; and
- 10) he has fully described all business activities during the
suspension.
Any interested person may appear at the hearing and be heard in
support of or in opposition to the petition for reinstatement. Further
information may be obtained from Jeananne L. Danner, Deputy
Administrator, Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility, 611 N.
Broadway, Suite l02, Milwaukee, WI 53202, (4l4) 227-4623.
Disciplinary Proceeding Against Jack J. Hargrove
On Feb. 4, 1997, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law
license of Jack J. Hargrove, 44, Bloomington, Minn., for one year. At
the time relevant to the disciplinary proceeding, Hargrove practiced in
Cumberland, Wis. The evidentiary findings were based upon the admissions
contained in Hargrove's pleading and upon the terms of a stipulation
between Hargrove and the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility
(BAPR).
In one matter, Hargrove, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a), failed to
respond to numerous client inquiries regarding the status of a deed that
Hargrove had been hired to draft and record. Hargrove did not respond to
a BAPR request for information about the matter and did not appear
before a district professional responsibility committee, which had twice
asked him to do so, in violation of SCR 21.03(4) and 22.07(3).
A second matter pertained to Hargrove's 1987 retainer to represent an
estate, in which no activity occurred subsequent to a May, 1992 order to
show cause, and which remained open as of the filing of the referee's
report in the disciplinary action. Hargrove's failure to act with
reasonable diligence violated SCR 20:1.3. Hargrove failed to respond to
the personal representative's repeated requests for information
regarding the status of the estate, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a). He
also withdrew from the representation by relocating, without telling the
client how he might be contacted and without returning estate documents,
in violation of 20:1.16(d). Hargrove failed to make any response to BAPR
or the district professional responsibility committee in their
investigation of the client's grievance, in violation of SCR 21.03(4)
and 22.07(2).
In a third matter, Hargrove's only misconduct was a failure to
respond to a BAPR request for information, for which he was found to
have violated SCR 21.03(4) and 22.07(2).
Hargrove was publicly reprimanded in 1991 for neglecting an estate
and a divorce case. In 1994 the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended
Hargrove's license for 90 days for neglecting several estates, knowingly
making a false statement to the probate court, neglecting a divorce case
and failing to keep the client informed in the matter, and failing to
cooperate with two BAPR investigations.
Public Reprimand of Ronald W. Hendree
Ronald W. Hendree, 45, Milwaukee, was retained by a union in January
1994 to represent it regarding claims of unfair labor practices against
the employer. In March the employer offered settlement terms of $75,000
to the union conditioned upon termination of the union's contract.
Hendree advised the union not to accept the offer but to file a federal
lawsuit instead. Hendree agreed to a contingent fee arrangement with the
union but did not put the agreement in writing. That month the union
advanced Hendree $3,750 to cover the costs of litigation and
investigation. He assured the union that it had a good case that was
worth a lot of money and that he would file the suit by that
November.
When Hendree had not filed by November, he promised he would file by
December. In March 1995, Hendree promised a union member that he would
file by April. From early in 1995 through April 1995, Hendree did not
respond to repeated messages to call the union president and other
members. Hendree was asked to either file the lawsuit by April 1995, or
promptly return the files and advance payment. When there was no
response, the union filed a grievance with BAPR in April 1995.
Hendree also was contacted by several union members as to pursuing
individual claims on their behalf. Hendree did not pursue them and
denied to BAPR that he had agreed to do so. However, in at least one
instance, he was paid a $150 retainer to contest a discharge, and a
retainer agreement was signed in November 1994. He returned the retainer
six months later without having filed the claim. Hendree told a second
union member that he would handle her sexual harassment claim, but after
having an investigator take her statement, he never contacted her and
never took further action.
The investigating committee found that the union had no viable claims
against its employer, and Hendree was unable to identify what cause of
action he would have filed. He told the committee that he had determined
by the end of 1994 that there was no basis to sue the employer, but
Hendree never told this to the union. In earlier responses to BAPR,
Hendree claimed instead that he had not filed a lawsuit because the
union had not advanced litigation costs and that the union had failed to
turn over necessary documents. Subsequently, the union provided
cancelled checks as proof of paying the $3,750, and corroboration that
the union's files and documents had been turned over to Hendree. Hendree
failed to return the files as the union requested and initially denied
to BAPR that he had the files. However, six months after the grievance
was filed, Hendree delivered a box of the union's files and documents to
BAPR.
BAPR found that Hendree had failed to put a contingency fee agreement
in writing, in violation of SCR 20:1.5(c). Further, Hendree did not
diligently pursue the legal matters of the union and individual members,
in violation of SCR 20:1.3. The Board also found that Mr. Hendree had
failed to keep his clients reasonably informed about the status of their
matters and to promptly comply with reasonable requests from his clients
for information, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a), and he had failed to
take reasonable steps to protect the union's interests by timely
surrendering its files and papers and had failed to return the union's
$3,750 advance, all in violation of SCR 20:1.16(d). Hendree also had
failed to provide competent representation to the union by not doing the
preparation reasonably necessary to handle the union's legal matter, in
violation of SCR 20:1.1. The public reprimand was conditioned upon
Hendree's agreement to refund the advance of $3,750 to the union.
The Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility, an arm of the
Wisconsin Supreme Court, assists the court in discharging its exclusive
constitutional responsibility to supervise the practice of law in this
state and to protect the public from acts of professional misconduct by
attorneys licensed to practice in Wisconsin. The board is composed of
eight lawyers and four nonlawyer members, and its offices are located at
Room 410, 110 E. Main St., Madison, WI 53703, and Room 102, 611 N.
Broadway, Milwaukee, WI 53202.
Wisconsin Lawyer