Sign In
    Wisconsin Lawyer
    April 01, 2001

    Wisconsin Lawyer April 2001: Lawyer Discipline

    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.


    Disciplinary Proceeding Against John V. Asher

    On Feb. 27, 2001, and effective that same date, the Wisconsin Supreme Court revoked the law license of John V. Asher, 48, formerly officed in Brookfield and Wauwatosa. In 1984 John Asher incorporated a law firm that he named the Christian Law Center (CLC). This was solely Asher's firm, although he may have employed one or more associates at various times. The CLC advertised extensively and handled a high volume of relatively low-asset personal bankruptcies. He also was the minister of a church he had founded, and he operated other business enterprises.

    During the late summer of 1999, it was widely reported in the media that Asher had extremely serious problems, both financially and regarding appropriate legal representation of his clients. After twice relocating his offices, he notified his clients by letter dated Aug. 27, 1999, that he was forced to close the CLC due to financial problems. Up to that time, however, he continued to accept retainers and filing fees from clients for work to be performed, but which was not done. From that time on, until mid-2000, numerous clients filed grievances alleging that they had paid funds to Asher for retainers and bankruptcy filing fees for actions that Asher never filed.

    The Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (BAPR, now the Office of Lawyer Regulation, OLR) complaint alleged 233 violations of the rules of professional conduct relating to 58 clients. Of these, BAPR alleged 51 counts of simultaneous violations of SCR 20:1.15(a), failure to hold clients' funds in trust, and SCR 20:8.4(c), engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. Although Asher had an IOLTA trust account and a "Filing Fee Account," Asher did not routinely deposit filing fees in these accounts, and the accounts appeared to be unused or used for other purposes. On Aug. 27, 1999, Asher acknowledged he had no funds held in trust. At that time, Asher should have had on deposit the filing fees of 51 clients, totaling $8,900, which amount he had converted to his own use.

    BAPR also alleged 53 violations of SCR 20:1.16(d), failure to return unearned fees to clients. The 53 clients had paid retainers in full to Asher to file bankruptcy actions, which Asher had not filed when he closed his office. Although Asher may have spent some time with the clients or had partially completed documents, the clients received no value for their retainers. The court found that Asher had failed to return a total of $33,811.50 in unearned fees to the 53 clients.

    The court also found 18 violations of SCR 20:1.3, failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness, in representations where the client had paid in full for actions that were not filed within a reasonable amount of time. The court found three violations of SCR 20:1.4(a) in instances where Asher's staff repeatedly put off clients calling for information or simply made no response whatsoever. In addition, the court found one violation of SCR 20:1.16(a)(3), where Asher filed a bankruptcy action after the client had discharged him.

    The court found 56 violations of SCR 22.07(3) based on Asher's failure to cooperate with 56 grievance investigations. Asher cooperated with only one investigation, and, in the others, he either failed to respond to BAPR's inquiries at all or the inquiries were returned marked "Refused - Return to Sender."

    The court ordered restitution to the clients in the above-named amounts, with interest, and ordered that Asher pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings. Asher had no previous disciplinary history.

    Suspension of Thomas D. Baehr

    On Dec. 7, 2000, pursuant to SCR 22.03(4) (effective Oct. 1, 2000), the OLR filed a motion to suspend the law license of Thomas D. Baehr for his willful failure to respond to requests for a written response or cooperate in other respects with three pending OLR grievance investigations concerning his conduct. On Dec. 22, 2000, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued an order requiring Baehr to show cause in writing by Jan. 11, 2001, why OLR's motion should not be granted; Baehr filed no response.

    On Feb. 22, 2001, the court issued an order granting OLR's motion and temporarily suspended Baehr's license effective on the date of the order and until further notice of the court. The court also ordered that Baehr comply with the requirements of SCR 22.26 relating to license suspension if he had not already done so.

    The court had earlier suspended Baehr's license for 90 days, commencing March 20, 2000, for professional misconduct. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Baehr, 2000 WI 8, 232 Wis. 2d 606, 605 N.W. 2d 523. Baehr's license has remained suspended because he has not paid the costs assessed in that proceeding, nor has he filed an affidavit with OLR showing full compliance with the terms and conditions of the order of suspension.

    Temporary Suspension of Perry P. Lieuallen

    On Feb. 22, 2001, the Wisconsin Supreme Court temporarily suspended the law license of Perry P. Lieuallen, 53, Port Washington, until further notice of the court, commencing the date of the order. The OLR moved for the suspension pending the outcome of disciplinary proceedings against Lieuallen. OLR filed a disciplinary complaint on Nov. 17, 2000, alleging numerous trust account violations, including conversion of funds from trust, in violation of SCR 20:1.15(a) and SCR 20:8.4(c). Lieuallen failed to respond to the court's order that he show cause, in writing, by Jan. 23, 2001, why OLR's motion should not be granted.

    Temporary Suspension of Matthew O. Olaiya

    On Dec. 7, 2000, the OLR filed a disciplinary complaint with the Wisconsin Supreme Court alleging misconduct by Matthew O. Olaiya, 43, who formerly practiced law in Madison. Pursuant to SCR 22.21, OLR also filed a motion seeking a temporary suspension of Olaiya's law license on the basis that Olaiya's continued practice of law during the pendency of the disciplinary complaint posed a threat to the interests of the public and the administration of justice. OLR's affidavit alleged that Olaiya, whose last known address was in Lagos Island, Nigeria, failed to adequately protect clients' interests when he left the country, neglected client matters, failed to communicate with clients, and engaged in other professional misconduct as alleged in the pending disciplinary complaint.

    The court ordered Olaiya to show cause why OLR's motion for temporary suspension should not be granted. Olaiya did not respond to the order to show cause, and on Feb. 22, 2001, the Wisconsin Supreme Court temporarily suspended Olaiya's law license and ordered him to comply with the requirements of SCR 22.26 if he had not already done so.

    Petition to Reinstate David V. Penn

    A hearing on the petition of David V. Penn for the reinstatement of his law license will be held before Referee John Schweitzer on Wednesday, May 30, 2001, at 9 a.m. in the small courtroom of the Vilas County Courthouse, 330 Court St., Eagle River, Wis.

    Penn's license was suspended for two years by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, effective June 4, 1996. The suspension was based upon the following misconduct:

    While acting as Vilas County District Attorney, Penn was involved in referral and prosecution in criminal proceedings of nine persons who previously had used an illegal drug with Penn or had personal knowledge of his illegal drug use. Penn thereby represented his client, the state, when that representation might have been or was materially limited by his own interests, contrary to SCR 20:1.7(b).

    In January 1993, Penn pled guilty to five counts of possession of marijuana containing THC and entered an Alford plea to one count of cocaine possession. Penn was found guilty and convicted of six misdemeanors.

    In February 1994, after he had left office as district attorney, Penn's blood and urine samples taken following a traffic stop disclosed the presence of cocaine metabolite and marijuana metabolite. Penn was charged with having possessed cocaine and entered into a deferred prosecution agreement.

    Based on the marijuana and cocaine possession convictions and upon the subsequent charge resulting in a deferred prosecution agreement, the court concluded that Penn committed criminal acts reflecting adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, contrary to SCR 20:8.4(b).

    In February 1990, while at a tavern, Penn discussed a pending felony drug case with the defendant, out of the presence and without the consent of the defendant's attorney, contrary to SCR 20:4.2.

    Penn is required by Supreme Court Rule 22.29 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 fully with the terms of the suspension and will continue to comply with them until his license is reinstated;

    4) he has maintained competence and learning in the law;

    5) his conduct since the suspension 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 courts;

    8) he has fully complied with the requirements set forth in SCR 22.26;

    9) he has indicated the proposed use of his license after reinstatement;

    10) he has fully described all business activities during his suspension; and

    11) he has made restitution or settled all claims from persons injured or harmed by his misconduct or, if not, has explained the failure or inability to do so.

    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 Melody Rader-Johnson at the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR), 110 E. Main St., #315, Madison, WI 53703, (877) 315-6941, or from OLR's retained counsel in this matter, Attorney Matthew F. Anich, 220 Sixth Ave. West, P.O. Box 677, Ashland, WI 54806-0677, (715) 682-9114.

    Suspension of M. Joanne Wolf

    Based on a comprehensive stipulation between M. Joanne Wolf, 52, Prairie du Chien, and the OLR, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended Wolf's law license for two years, effective Feb. 6, 2001. Wolf and OLR stipulated that in July 1997 Wolf was retained to represent a client in a divorce. Wolf's law license had been suspended for nonpayment of State Bar dues, effective Nov. 2, 1992, and has remained under suspension since that date.

    Wolf's client wished to remarry in mid-May 1998. Wolf informed the client that she could not remarry until six months after the effective date of the divorce, and thus, the divorce would need to be final by mid-November 1997. Although Wolf subsequently informed the client that a final hearing in the divorce had been scheduled for November 1997, Wolf did not, in fact, file the divorce petition until March 1998. Wolf told her client that the hearing on the divorce had been postponed and that Wolf would ask the judge to waive the six-month requirement.

    On April 29, 1998, the circuit court granted a divorce to Wolf's client and reminded her that she could not remarry until six months after the date of the divorce. Wolf told the client that she would arrange to have the judge backdate the judgment of divorce. Wolf subsequently provided her client with a purported copy of the client's divorce judgment that showed the client's divorce had been granted on Oct. 29, 1997. Wolf told the client that after she had used the judgment to obtain her marriage license, she should destroy the judgment.

    The county clerk refused to issue a marriage license to Wolf's client because the date of divorce shown in the copy of the divorce judgment that the client presented did not coincide with the date shown in the judgment on file with the clerk of court's office. Wolf thereafter went to the county clerk's office, represented that the divorce had been granted on Oct. 29, 1997, obtained the marriage license, and delivered it to her client. While the client was on her way to her wedding rehearsal with her fiancé, the client was contacted by the police and informed that the marriage license was not valid.

    Based on Wolf's actions in this divorce case, she was convicted on June 16, 1999, on one count of altering a public record with intent to defraud, contrary to section 943.38(1)(b) of the Wisconsin Statutes, a Class C felony. Sentence was withheld, and Wolf was placed on probation for four years conditioned upon performance of community service and restitution.

    Wolf and OLR stipulated to the following conclusions: that by providing legal services while her law license was under suspension, Wolf violated SCR 20:5.5(a); that by failing between July 1997 and March 1998 to file her client's petition for divorce, Wolf failed to act with reasonable diligence, contrary to SCR 20:1.3; that by telling her client a divorce hearing had been scheduled for November 1997, and misrepresenting to the client that Wolf had arranged to get the divorce judgment backdated, Wolf engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, contrary to SCR 20:8.4(c); that by fraudulently altering a public document, Wolf committed a criminal act that reflects adversely on her honesty and trustworthiness, contrary to SCR 20:8.4(b); and that by representing to the county clerk's office that the fabricated divorce judgment was genuine, Wolf engaged in dishonesty, contrary to SCR 20:8.4(c).


Join the conversation! Log in to comment.

News & Pubs Search

-
Format: MM/DD/YYYY