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, and Suite 300, 342 N. Water
St., Milwaukee, WI 53202. Toll-free telephone: (877) 315-6941.
Public Reprimand of
Thomas J. Fink
In an order filed June 28, 2001, the supreme court publicly
reprimanded Thomas J. Fink, 65, Menasha, for professional misconduct
stemming from representation of a man in a probation revocation
proceeding. In violation of SCR 20:1.4(a), Fink failed to provide the
client with documents pertaining to the revocation proceeding, failed to
keep the client reasonably informed about the case status, and failed to
promptly respond to the client's reasonable requests for information in
the matter. After his representation of the client in the revocation
proceeding concluded, Fink violated SCR 20:1.16(d) by failing to provide
the client with a copy of the case file and otherwise failing to take
reasonable steps to protect the client's interests.
Fink violated former SCR 21.03(4) and former SCR 22.07(2), each in
effect prior to Oct. 1, 2000, by failing to respond to BAPR's written
requests for a response to the client's grievance, and, after referral
of the case to a district investigative committee, by making a
misrepresentation to the committee concerning his method of handling
collect calls at a time relevant to the client's allegations of a lack
of communication.
Disciplinary Proceeding Against Donald
J. Harman
On June 26, 2001, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered a six-month
suspension of the law license of Donald J. Harman, 70, La Crosse,
effective Aug. 1, 2001. Harman engaged in misconduct in two matters.
In the first matter, Harman represented a man on a personal injury
claim stemming from an automobile accident. An insurer provided Harman
with notice of a subrogation claim. The case settled, and the insurer
for the other driver delivered a check to Harman, made payable to
Harman's client, Harman, a chiropractor who treated the client, and the
subrogated carrier. Harman endorsed the check on behalf of the
subrogated carrier without authorization to do so, contrary to SCR
20:8.4(c).
Upon receipt of the settlement funds, Harman failed to notify the
subrogated carrier that he was holding funds for it in trust, and
instead, after waiting approximately 30 days, Harman sent the subrogated
carrier a check representing less than one-fourth of its claim, a
reduction that was not the product of any negotiation or agreement on
the part of the carrier. Harman violated SCR 20:1.15(b), by failing to
provide prompt notice to the subrogated carrier that he was holding
funds in which it had an interest, and by failing to deliver funds to
which it was entitled. Harman violated SCR 20:1.15(d), by holding funds
in trust in which he had a partial interest, and thereafter making
disbursements prior to an agreed severance of interest in the funds.
In the second matter, a woman met with Harman concerning a child
custody case, and further consulted with Harman about a potential legal
malpractice action against an attorney who had earlier represented the
woman in a medical malpractice case. Harman obtained the client's
medical malpractice case file, which included medical records. While
still representing the woman, Harman undertook criminal defense
representation of the woman's live-in boyfriend in a case stemming from
a domestic altercation in which the woman was the victim. Harman did not
have the woman's written consent to his representation of the boyfriend,
placing Harman in violation of SCR 20:1.7(b).
Harman wrote to the prosecution and referred to materials, including
medical records, from the woman's earlier medical malpractice case file,
which Harman indicated would show that the woman had a history of drug
and alcohol dependence, and self-abusive behavior. Harman then forwarded
some of the woman's medical records to the prosecution. The woman had
not authorized Harman's disclosures, which were done in violation of SCR
20:1.6(a).
The woman and the boyfriend had another altercation leading to
criminal charges against each of them, and Harman again represented the
boyfriend. The woman obtained public defender representation. Despite
knowledge that both the woman and the boyfriend were subject to no
contact provisions in their respective bail bonds, Harman arranged for
the two of them to meet in his office to resolve issues between them,
and by doing so, Harman knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the
rules of a tribunal, thus violating SCR 20:3.4(c).
The woman later filed a petition seeking a temporary injunction and
restraining order against the boyfriend. Harman appeared at a hearing on
the petition, during which Harman cross-examined the woman, making use
of information obtained from his prior representation of the woman, in
violation of SCR 20:1.9(b). Harman again violated SCR 20:1.9(b) when he
made a further unauthorized disclosure of certain of the woman's medical
records to the district attorney's office, the clerk of court, the
public defender's office, the guardian ad litem in the woman's custody
case, and a women's shelter. Harman acknowledged that he released the
records for the specific purpose of undermining the woman's credibility
and to keep her from continuing to make what he viewed as false claims
against the boyfriend.
Harman was publicly reprimanded for misconduct by the court in 1987.
Harman consented to imposition of a public reprimand for misconduct by
the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (BAPR) in 1989. The
court again publicly reprimanded Harman in 1998.
Wisconsin Lawyer
