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.
Disciplinary Proceeding Against James H. Dumke
On June 30, 1999, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law
license of James H. Dumke, 50, Janesville, for one year, as discipline
for professional misconduct. The suspension will commence on April 27,
2000, and run consecutive to the suspension of his license currently in
effect.
In August 1996, less than two months prior to trial, Illinois counsel
for the plaintiffs in a personal injury action asked Dumke for
assistance. Dumke and Illinois counsel agreed to split the attorney fee,
although Illinois counsel had not consulted with the clients concerning
Dumke's participation. Approximately one week before trial, Dumke filed
an untimely request for substitution of the judge assigned to the case
and did not comply with statutory notice provisions.
Approximately five days before the scheduled trial, Illinois counsel
told the clients there would be no trial because of the request for
substitution. That was the first time the clients were informed of
Dumke's involvement. When the clients contacted the court to confirm
that the matter had been continued, they were told that the case
remained on the trial calendar as scheduled. Neither Illinois counsel
nor Dumke had called the court to find out whether a continuance had
been granted.
On the day of trial, counsel for the defendants and his witnesses
appeared for trial, but Illinois counsel, Dumke, and the clients did not
appear. After being contacted by the court, Dumke went to the courthouse
and opposed the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute,
and the court took that motion under advisement. The clients were
unaware of what had occurred until almost one week later, when Illinois
counsel wrote them explaining the situation.
By failing to meet the statutory requirements for the substitution of
judge motion, failing to seek confirmation that the trial had been
continued, and failing to appear at trial, Dumke failed to provide
competent representation to the clients, in violation of SCR
20:1.1, and failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness,
in violation of SCR
20:1.3. By agreeing to divide attorney fees with Illinois counsel
without first obtaining the clients' consent and giving them the
opportunity to object to the participation of other attorneys in the
case, Dumke violated SCR
20:1.5(e). By failing to promptly notify adverse counsel of the
written request for substitution of judge, Dumke had an ex parte
communication, in violation of SCR
20:3.5(b).
In another matter, Dumke was hired in October 1996 to represent a
woman in post-divorce matters. Dumke told the woman that court dates had
been set to address relevant issues and that he would request an
extension to take an appeal. In fact, no court dates had been scheduled.
The client repeatedly attempted to obtain information from Dumke without
success. Dumke did not respond to two requests from the Board of
Attorneys Professional Responsibility (BAPR) for a response to the
grievance.
Dumke's misrepresentation to the client that he had scheduled two
court dates constituted conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation, in violation of SCR
20:8.4(c). Dumke's failure to provide any meaningful legal services
to the client constituted a failure to act with reasonable diligence and
promptness in representing a client, in violation of SCR
20:1.3. Dumke's failure to respond to letters from BAPR concerning
the client's grievance violated SCR
21.03(4) and 22.07(2).
Dumke previously has been disciplined for professional misconduct
four times. In 1990 Dumke received a public reprimand. In 1992 the court
suspended his license for six months for neglecting clients' matters,
failing to provide competent representation or to communicate with
clients, and as a prosecutor, communicating with a party known to be
represented by counsel without that counsel's consent.
In 1998 Dumke's license was suspended for one year for neglect,
failing to communicate with the client, and engaging in
misrepresentation in the client's post-conviction matter. Later in 1998
the court suspended Dumke's license for one year, consecutive to the
earlier one-year suspension, for his neglect of a client's
post-conviction matter and failure to cooperate with BAPR's
investigation into two client matters. The latter suspension commenced
April 27, 1999, and continues in effect.
Summary Suspension of Clay E. Konnor
On June 16, 1999, the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted BAPR's motion
for the summary suspension of Clay E. Konnor, 36, Milwaukee, pursuant to
SCR
11.03, pending the outcome of the current disciplinary proceeding
against Konnor. On June 3, 1998, Konnor pled no-contest to one count of
misdemeanor theft, one count of felony burglary, and seven counts of
misdemeanor practicing law without a license in Milwaukee County circuit
court. The misdemeanor theft charge originally was issued as one count
of felony forgery, but was amended to misdemeanor theft pursuant to
agreement. On July 24, 1998, Konnor was sentenced on all of these
charges, with an additional eight uncharged counts of practicing law
without a license being read in. Konnor was sentenced to serve 30 days
in jail and placed on probation for five years.
As a basis for the theft charge, in 1993 Konnor had forged the
endorsement of a city treasurer's office on an escrow check and
deposited the check in his own checking account. As a basis for the
burglary charge, in 1997 Konnor had broken into the home of an
acquaintance and removed various pieces of musical equipment. The
acquaintance caught Konnor in the act and all stolen items were
recovered. As a basis for the practicing law without a license charges,
in 1997 Konnor had been suspended for failure to pay State Bar dues and
failure to comply with continuing legal education requirements, but
continued to practice law during this period. Konnor also was in
possession of several stolen oil paintings from a club in Chicago in
1997; however, no charges were issued after Konnor returned the
paintings when questioned by police.
By his actions, BAPR found that Konnor committed criminal acts that
reflected adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a
lawyer, in violation of SCR
20:8.4(b); that Konnor engaged in conduct involving dishonesty,
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, in violation of SCR
20:8.4(c); and that Konnor engaged in the practice of law where
doing so violated the regulation of the legal profession in that
jurisdiction, in violation of SCR
20:5.5(a).
Disciplinary Proceeding Against James H. Martin
On June 30, 1999, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended for six
months the law license of James H. Martin, effective immediately. The
suspension stems from findings of misconduct in several matters.
In the first matter, Martin was retained by a client to file a
bankruptcy. The client paid Martin a $450 advance on fees. Martin failed
to file the bankruptcy and failed to return or otherwise account for the
$450. Martin also failed to respond to the client's numerous telephone
calls. After failing to hear from Martin, the client went to Martin's
office and found his office vacated. Martin failed to respond to letters
from BAPR and the district committee regarding the client's grievance.
The court found that Martin failed to act with reasonable diligence and
promptness in representing a client, contrary to SCR
20:1.3; failed to provide the client accurate information regarding
the case and failed to keep the client reasonably informed about the
status of the case, contrary to SCR
20:1.4(a); failed to return an unearned advance on fees, contrary to
SCR
20:1.16(d); and failed to cooperate with BAPR's investigation,
contrary to SCR
21.03(4) and 22.07(2) and
(3).
In the second matter, Martin represented a client in a criminal
matter. After Martin failed to file a notice of intent to pursue
post-conviction relief, the client filed with the appeals court a motion
for an extension to file a notice of intent to pursue post-conviction
relief. The court of appeals issued three orders requesting that Martin
provide a response to the client's motion, but Martin failed to respond
to any of the orders. The third order, sent by certified mail, was
return "unclaimed," and the court's further attempts to locate Martin
were unsuccessful. Martin also failed to respond to letters from BAPR
and the district committee requesting information regarding this
client's grievance. The court found that Martin failed to act with
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, contrary
to SCR 20:1.3; failed to respond to orders from the court of appeals,
contrary to SCR
20:3.4(c); and failed to cooperate with BAPR's investigation,
contrary to SCR
21.03(4) and 22.07(2) and
(3).
In the third matter, Martin was retained in June 1997 to handle a
client's divorce. Martin informed the client that a hearing was
scheduled at the end of June and that Martin had closed his office, but
if the client needed to speak to Martin, the client could call Martin at
his home. Martin appeared for the hearing, and the court granted a
judgment of divorce. The court subsequently notified the client that the
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment had not yet been
filed. The client then retained other counsel to prepare and file the
necessary papers with the court. Martin failed to respond to letters
from BAPR seeking information regarding this client's grievance. The
court found that Martin failed to act with reasonable diligence and
promptness in representing the client, contrary to SCR
20:1.3; and failed to cooperate with BAPR's investigation of this
matter, contrary to SCR
21.03(4) and 22.07(2) and
(3).
In addition to the six-month sus-pension, Martin was ordered to make
restitution to the bankruptcy client and to pay costs of the
proceeding.
Disciplinary Proceeding Against Scott E. Selmer
The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law license of Scott E.
Selmer, 49, of Golden Valley, Minn., for 12 months, effective June 23,
1999, as discipline reciprocal to that imposed upon him by the Minnesota
Supreme Court in 1997.
A Minnesota referee concluded that Selmer had engaged in a pattern of
frivolous and harassing conduct by filing counterclaims alleging racial
discrimination in actions brought against him by his creditors and by
filing claims in state and federal courts alleging racial
discrimination, knowingly offered false and misleading evidence in
response to discovery requests, failed to supplement incomplete and
misleading responses to discovery requests, failed to comply or make
reasonably diligent efforts to comply with legally proper discovery
requests, made false statements of fact in attempts to advance his own
interests, and engaged in dishonest conduct in those actions.
Based on the Minnesota result, proceedings before a Wisconsin
referee, and an appeal heard by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the
Wisconsin disciplinary action resulted in conclusions that Selmer
violated SCR
20:3.1 by knowingly advancing claims, defenses, or factual positions
that were frivolous; SCR
20:3.3 by offering evidence he knew to be false; SCR
20:3.4 by failing to make reasonably diligent effort to comply with
a legally proper discovery request by an opposing party; and SCR
20:4.1 by knowingly making a false statement of fact to a third
person.
The Wisconsin referee observed that the misconduct was for Selmer's
personal gain and was similar to his abuse of the litigation process to
harass others for which he was previously publicly reprimanded.
On appeal, the court upheld the referee's grant of summary judgment
in favor of BAPR and rejected Selmer's argument that he had been
improperly denied discovery. The court observed that a goal of the
reciprocal discipline rule is to ensure that an attorney had a full and
fair opportunity to litigate the misconduct in the foreign state's
proceeding and that the outcome was supported by the evidence. A
reciprocal discipline proceeding does not afford an attorney the
opportunity to relitigate the underlying misconduct allegations that
were heard and decided in the foreign state.
Selmer has been disciplined in Wisconsin twice previously. In 1990
BAPR privately reprimanded him for failing to provide competent
representation by filing papers that reflected a lack of knowledge of
Wisconsin appellate procedure and tribunals, and for filing documents
while suspended from practice in this state for failure to comply with
continuing legal education requirements. In 1995 the court publicly
reprimanded him, reciprocal to a Minnesota reprimand for failing to
promptly provide his client in a personal injury matter a full
accounting of funds, charging and suing that client to collect an
unreasonable fee, abusing the discovery process, failing to maintain
proper trust account books and records and falsely certifying that he
had done so, and commingling funds in his trust account.
In addition to the 12-month reciprocal license suspension, the court
ordered that Selmer pay the costs of the Wisconsin proceeding.
Public Reprimand of Daniel F. Snyder
Daniel F. Snyder, 49, Park Falls, has been publicly reprimanded by
BAPR. In 1993 Snyder was retained by three clients regarding a potential
defamation or harassment claim against the clients' employer following
the clients' "whistle-blowing" of alleged abuse and neglect of
developmentally disabled individuals and alleged financial
improprieties. One of the clients also requested that Snyder file an
appeal of the denial of her unemployment claim.
Between 1993 and April 1998, when the clients inquired as to the
status of their matters, Snyder told the clients he had been in contact
with the U.S. Magistrate, the court, and opposing counsel regarding the
case. Snyder also informed the clients that he would attempt to settle
the matter through mediation.
In April 1998 the clients learned that no case had ever been filed on
their behalf and that there had not been any efforts by Snyder to
mediate a settlement. One client also learned that no appeal had ever
been filed regarding the unemployment claim.
BAPR concluded that Snyder failed to competently represent the
clients, contrary to SCR
20:1.1; neglected the clients' legal matters, contrary to SCR
20:1.3; failed to keep the clients adequately informed as to the status
of their legal matters, contrary to SCR
20:1.4(a); and failed to explain a matter to the extent reasonably
necessary to permit the clients to make informed decisions regarding the
representation, contrary to SCR
20:1.4(b). BAPR further found that in giving his clients false
information concerning the status of their claims, Sndyer engaged in
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation,
contrary to SCR
20:8.4(c).
Wisconsin Lawyer