Vol. 73, No. 3, March
2000
Lawyer Discipline
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 342 N. Water St., 3rd Floor, Milwaukee, WI
53202.
Public Reprimand of Jeffrey T. Roethe
Jeffrey T. Roethe, 55, Edgerton, has consented to a public reprimand
by the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (BAPR). Roethe,
the Edgerton city attorney, had represented a developer in purchasing
and rezoning land north of Edgerton. In 1995, on behalf of the city,
Roethe met with the developer and drafted an offer for the city to
purchase 100 acres of land from the developer for $3,000 per acre. The
developer did not own the land, but Roethe says he was informed the
developer was "the sole and exclusive agent to negotiate for the sale of
property." In fact, the developer had, at most, a verbal option to
purchase the property from a farmer, who was another client of Roethe's,
for $1,000 per acre.
Before the city council considered the developer's offer, Roethe
prepared an offer to purchase between the developer and farmer that
formalized their verbal agreement and provided that the farmer would
sell 179 acres to the developer (including the 100 acres offered to the
city) for approximately $1,000 per acre. Roethe made no written
disclosure to the city about an actual or potential conflict of
interest.
Six days later, Roethe attended a closed meeting of the Edgerton city
council to consider the developer's offer to sell the land. Roethe
advised the council that $3,000 per acre was the developer's "bottom
line offer." Roethe did not disclose that he represented the developer
in acquiring the land or the farmer in selling the land. The city
accepted the offer.
Eleven days later, Roethe represented both the developer and the
farmer at their closing. The developer and farmer executed a written
waiver of conflict form that made no reference to the developer's sale
to the city. No consent was obtained from the city.
A grievance was filed with BAPR, and Roethe's initial response
disclosed that he represented the farmer as well as the city, but denied
that he had represented the developer. In response to a second inquiry,
Roethe disclosed prior representations of the developer, but failed to
disclose that he represented the developer in the purchase from the
farmer. Roethe declined to provide a closing statement he had prepared
for the farmer, stating that he believed it to be confidential, and
stated that, to his knowledge, no accepted Offer to Purchase between the
farmer and developer existed. This statement was misleading, as Roethe
had in a client file a signed Offer to Purchase that he, himself, had
prepared.
In another follow-up letter, BAPR staff asked Roethe for further
information, and Roethe's third response disclosed for the first time
that Roethe had represented the developer in that transaction. Roethe
later provided a copy of the closing statement he had earlier declined
to provide and a copy of the purchase offer, the existence of which he
had earlier denied knowledge. He also provided the written waiver of
conflict form signed by the farmer and developer that he had not
previously produced or described.
BAPR concluded that Roethe had a conflict of interest in representing
the city, the developer, and the farmer in these related transactions,
in violation of SCR
20:1.7(a) and (b). BAPR further found that Roethe failed to
cooperate with its investigation, contrary to SCR
22.07(2).
Hearing to Reinstate Patrick Russell
A hearing on the petition of Patrick Russell, Milwaukee, for the
reinstatement of his law license will be held before the District 2
Professional Responsibility Committee on April 25, 2000, at 6 p.m., at
the Office of the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility, 342 N.
Water St., Suite 300, Milwaukee, Wis.
Russell's license was suspended for 18 months by the Wisconsin
Supreme Court, effective April 27, 1998. The suspension was based upon
the following misconduct:
Over a period of several years, Russell schemed to take money to
which he was not entitled from his law firm, in which he was a
partner-shareholder and the treasurer. The scheme included his
falsifying and having another employee falsify firm financial records.
In 1995 Russell requested and received a $2,500 check from the firm's
bookkeeper to purchase office equipment. Russell deposited the check
into his personal account and spent the funds, but the money was listed
on the firm's books as a miscellaneous office expense. Also in 1995
Russell signed a law firm check to himself, $1,000 of which he
characterized as an advance. He did not obtain permission or
preapproval, and the disbursement was accounted for as a miscellaneous
office expense. In 1994 Russell obtained $1,687 from the law firm, which
was debited as a miscellaneous office expense when the funds actually
were used for home personal computer equipment. Later he obtained $2,000
from the firm for computer hardware; this money was listed as a "prepaid
bonus," such that it was repaid to the firm at year-end. However, the
disbursement was not preapproved and amounted to an unauthorized
interest-free loan from the firm. From 1993 to 1995, Russell used his
law firm's credit card for more than $3,300 in personal expenses, for
which there was neither approval nor reimbursement, and also allowed the
bookkeeper to charge two vacation trips on the card. He also purchased
$677 in video equipment for personal use, had the bookkeeper pay the
bill from the firm's account as an office expense, and did not reimburse
the firm. Without the law firm's permission, he provided legal services
and personally retained the $1,850 in fees that were generated. Lastly,
he received $23,000 in tax-free reimbursements under a "flex" plan for
childcare expenses that did not qualify under the plan and federal
guidelines.
Russell is required by Supreme Court
Rule 22.28 to establish by evidence that is clear and convincing,
the following, that:
- he desires to have his license reinstated;
- he has not practiced law during the suspension;
- he has complied with the terms of the suspension;
- he has maintained competence and learning in law;
- his conduct since the discipline has been exemplary and above
reproach;
- 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;
- 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 aid in the administration of justice as a member of the bar
and an officer of the court;
- 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, has explained the failure or inability to do so;
- he has indicated the proposed use of the license after
reinstatement; and
- 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, 342 N.
Water St., Suite 300, Milwaukee, WI 53202, (414) 227-4623.
Hearing to Reinstate Leslie J. Webster
A public hearing on the petition of Leslie J. Webster for
reinstatement of his law license will be held before the District 5
Professional Responsibility Committee on Thursday, April 20, 2000, at 1
p.m. in the Branch 1 Circuit Court Room on the second floor of the La
Crosse County Courthouse, 333 Vine St., La Crosse, Wis.
Webster became licensed to practice law in 1979 and practiced in
Ellsworth. His law license was suspended for two years effective Jan.
21, 1998, Disciplinary Proceeding
Against Webster, 217 Wis. 2d 371, 577 N.W.2d 21 (1998). Prior
to his suspension, Webster had been publicly reprimanded by the court,
Disciplinary Proceeding Against Webster, 154 Wis. 2d 110, 452
N.W.2d 374 (1990).
Webster was suspended based on his conviction in federal court on one
count of aiding and abetting the fraudulent concealment of a debtor's
property from a bankruptcy trustee, a felony. The Wisconsin Supreme
Court determined that Webster had committed a criminal act that
reflected adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness as a
lawyer, contrary to SCR
20:8.4(b).
Webster has the burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing
evidence that he has the moral character to practice law in this state
and that his resumption of the practice of law will not be detrimental
to the integrity and standing of the bar or the administration of
justice or subversive of the public interest. Webster also must
demonstrate that he has settled all claims from persons harmed by his
misconduct.
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 Elsa P. Greene, Board of Attorneys
Professional Responsibility, 110 E. Main St., Room 315, Madison, WI
53703-3383, (608) 267-7274.
Disciplinary Proceeding Against K. Richard Wells
The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law license of K. Richard
Wells, 54, Kenosha, for 90 days, commencing Feb. 11, 2000. In addition,
the court ordered that Wells, as a condition of reinstatement, obtain at
his expense a psychological evaluation and follow any treatment plan
that may be recommended as a result. The court also ordered that Wells
make appropriate restitution and pay the costs of the disciplinary
proceeding.
The court, adopting the referee's findings of fact entered after
Wells declined to participate in the disciplinary proceeding, found that
Wells engaged in misconduct in five separate grievances. In each of the
matters, the court found that Wells failed to cooperate with BAPR's
investigation in violation of SCR
21.03(4) and 22.07(2)
by failing to respond to letters from BAPR staff.
In the first matter, a man sought Wells' assistance in obtaining an
occupational driver's license. Wells sent the client an authorization
for release of the client's counseling records, which the client signed
and returned to Wells. Wells then notarized his client's signature
without having witnessed the signature, in violation of SCR
20:8.4(c). Wells failed to respond to letters from BAPR staff when
the client filed a grievance alleging neglect and failure to
communicate. Wells gave no explanation for his failure to cooperate with
BAPR's investigation.
In the second matter, Wells previously had received a private
reprimand based on this client's grievance. The reprimand was
conditioned on return of the client's file materials. The client
complained several months later that he had not received the file,
although Wells represented when accepting the reprimand that he had
returned the file. Wells did not respond to BAPR staff's inquiries
regarding the matter. The court found that Wells, thereby, failed to
cooperate with BAPR's investigation.
In the third matter, a woman retained Wells for $3,000 to represent
her minor son regarding potential criminal charges. Wells failed to
respond to the woman's repeated phone calls for more than five months,
inquiring as to the status of the matter. Wells failed to respond to
three letters from BAPR staff. The court found that Wells failed to
communicate with the client in violation of SCR
20:1.4(a), and failed to cooperate with BAPR's investigation. Wells
refunded the $3,000 retainer.
In the fourth matter, a man retained Wells for $750 to represent him
on OWI charges. Wells attended an initial hearing with the client but
then failed to appear at the pretrial, resulting in the client's being
found guilty. The client was unaware of the guilty finding until he
received notice from the municipality several months later informing him
that he owed a forfeiture of $719, and that his driver's license was
suspended for nine months. Wells failed to return the client's calls
seeking an explanation for the guilty finding. Wells failed to respond
to two letters from BAPR staff. The court found that Wells failed to act
with reasonable diligence and promptness, in violation of SCR
20:1.3, failed to communicate with the client, in violation of SCR
20:1.4(a), and had failed to cooperate with BAPR's investigation.
Wells refunded the $750.
In the fifth matter, Wells failed to respond to two letters from BAPR
staff seeking a response to a grievance. The court found that Wells,
thereby, failed to cooperate with BAPR's investigation. In imposing the
90-day suspension, the court considered Wells' prior discipline, which
included two private reprimands, one in 1997 and one in 1998, for
substantially similar misconduct. The court also took into account
Wells' repeated pattern of noncooperation, and his repeated violations
of professional obligations in respect to direct dealings with
clients.
Wisconsin Lawyer