Vol. 73, No. 9, September 2000

Lawyer Discipline

Public Reprimand of Charles R. Koehn

Charles R. Koehn, 56, Green Bay, consented to a public reprimand by the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (BAPR) on July 11, 2000.

In 1990 Koehn received a $2,500 retainer to represent a client in the appeal of a federal criminal conviction. Koehn failed to file a required jurisdictional statement and appellate brief. The court issued two Rules to Show Cause to which Koehn also failed to respond, resulting in a $100 fine and a further order to file documents. BAPR found that Koehn's failure to file the documents and respond to the Rules to Show Cause was contrary to SCR 20:1.3, which requires an attorney to act with reasonable diligence and promptness on behalf of a client.

Koehn, with the client's consent, then filed a voluntary motion to dismiss the appeal, but told the client he would pursue other avenues of relief. Koehn thereafter failed to respond to at least 13 inquiries from the client's wife, who was Koehn's only contact with the client, seeking information about the status of the appeal. BAPR found that Koehn thereby violated SCR 20:1.4(a), requiring an attorney to promptly comply with a client's reasonable requests for information.

In 1992, eight months after the voluntary dismissal and more than a year after the client's sentencing, Koehn filed a Rule 35(b) motion requesting a reduction of sentence. The motion was dismissed because a Rule 35(b) motion can be filed only by the government, and then only within a year of sentencing. BAPR found that Koehn had thereby failed to provide competent representation to his client, contrary to SCR 20:1.1.

As a condition of the public reprimand, Koehn was required to refund the full amount of the retainer fee he had received from the client for services that were of no value to the client.

Disciplinary Proceeding against Robert K. Kuhnmuench

The Wisconsin Supreme Court revoked by consent the law license of Robert K. Kuhnmuench, 50, Milwaukee, effective April 12, 2000, following his conviction of one felony count of theft by fraud. [20:8.4(b)].

Kuhnmuench currently is serving a two-year prison sentence, and has made full restitution for the $66,320.20 that he stole. He obtained the funds by submitting 68 fraudulent requests to the Milwaukee County Clerk of Court for unclaimed funds that were being held by the county. He forged the signatures of the actual claimants on the required paperwork and retained the proceeds of the fraudulent claims. None of the named claimants received any portion of the funds.

Furthermore, Kuhnmuench converted an additional $5,500 from the county beyond the $66,320.20 for which he was convicted; converted another $200 that was being held in trust; commingled personal funds with funds belonging to clients in both his trust account and his business account; and used funds from the trust account to pay personal and business expenses, including rent, utility bills, credit card bills, and entertainment expenses [20:1.15(a) and 20:8.4(c)].

In early 1996, Kuhnmuench discovered that the county was holding $22,000 in unclaimed funds for a man. After tracking down the man's address, Kuhnmuench sent him 17 letters, attempting to solicit him as a client by coercion, duress, or harassment [20:7.3(d)(3)], and making false statements about filing a claim with the county [20:7.1(a)]. The man never indicated any interest in retaining Kuhnmuench and, in fact, asked Kuhnmuench to leave him alone [20:7.3(d)(2)]. None of the letters were labeled "Advertisement" [20:7.3(b)]. After discovering that the man had already secured the release of the $22,000, Kuhnmuench sued him, claiming unjust enrichment. The court dismissed this claim, finding it frivolous, and awarded costs to the defendant [20:3.1(a)(1)].

With respect to his representation of a man in a criminal matter, Kuhnmuench refused to file a Notice of Intent to Pursue Postconviction Relief, despite the client's requests [20:1.2(a)]. Finally, he failed to cooperate with BAPR's investigation of this matter and the preceding matter [22.07(2) and (3), and 21.03(4)].

Public Reprimand of Joseph T. Lex

Joseph T. Lex, 64, West Allis, intentionally failed to timely file Wisconsin income tax returns for the years 1991 and 1993-95. In addition, he received 24 separate assessments from the Wisconsin Department of Revenue from 1983-98 for his failure to file either individual income tax returns or employee withholding tax returns. Lex ultimately filed the tax returns and completed an agreement with the Department of Revenue to pay all taxes, interest, and penalties for those years. Lex experienced financial and professional hardships during the period for which he failed to file state tax returns and was not criminally prosecuted for his failure to timely file the returns.

The court found that, by failing to timely file his Wisconsin tax returns for the years 1991-97, Lex violated a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision (State v. Roggensack, 19 Wis. 2d. 38, 113 N.W. 2d. 412 (1963)) regulating the conduct of lawyers, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(f). Lex also was ordered to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding.

Lex previously was publicly reprimanded in 1987 for neglect and failure to cooperate with BAPR's investigation of the matter.

Public Reprimand of Kevin C. O'Keefe

Kevin C. O'Keefe, 44, formerly of La Crosse and now residing in Seattle, Wash., was publicly reprimanded by the Wisconsin Supreme Court and ordered to pay restitution in an order dated July 13, 2000.

O'Keefe failed to answer the complaint filed by BAPR. The complaint alleged that in 1995, while representing a client in a personal injury matter, O'Keefe undertook representation of the client's wife regarding injuries allegedly caused by a treadmill.

In 1997 the defendants in the treadmill case moved for summary judgment but then offered to settle the case for $7,500 if O'Keefe could obtain releases from three subrogated insurers. O'Keefe did not promptly obtain releases from the subrogated insurers; neither did O'Keefe oppose the motion for summary judgment, and the motion was granted. Two months later, when O'Keefe did obtain waivers from all the subrogated insurers and tried to proceed with the $7,500 settlement, opposing counsel informed O'Keefe that there was nothing to settle because the case had been dismissed and, furthermore, the treadmill manufacturer had now filed for bankruptcy.

O'Keefe nevertheless continued, for another month, to lead the client to believe that O'Keefe was just waiting for the settlement check. In October 1997 O'Keefe told the client that the settlement was in jeopardy and encouraged her to bring a small claims action against the treadmill retailer to seek enforcement of the settlement agreement. She chose not to do so.

While her case was pending, the wife had received periodic bills itemizing O'Keefe's expenses, but O'Keefe told her she need not pay until conclusion of the case. When the case was dismissed, the unpaid expenses, plus finance charges that O'Keefe had added to the bill, totaled $2,790.98. In February 1998 the husband's personal injury claim was settled. O'Keefe deducted from the husband's settlement check, without any advance notice to either client, the $2,790.98 in expenses O'Keefe claimed he was owed for the wife's case.

The court concluded that O'Keefe failed to keep the wife reasonably informed about the status of her matter, contrary to SCR 20:1.4, and failed to hold property in trust until there was an agreement and severance of interests, contrary to SCR 20:1.15(d). In addition, the court found that by agreeing to also represent one of the subrogated insurers in the wife's case without obtaining the wife's written consent, O'Keefe engaged in a technical conflict of interest contrary to SCR 20:1.7(b).

The court ordered that within 60 days of its order, O'Keefe must make restitution to his clients of the amount improperly withheld from the husband's settlement proceeds, together with 5 percent interest. In the event the costs are not paid within that time, and absent a showing of his inability to pay, the court ordered O'Keefe's Wisconsin law license suspended until further order of the court. O'Keefe also was ordered to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding.

Temporary Suspension of Mark R. Prichard

Pursuant to SCR 22.30(1), on May 11, 2000, BAPR filed a motion seeking a temporary suspension of the law license of Mark R. Prichard, and that Prichard be required to turn over to BAPR all client files in pending matters as well as a list of files in his possession. BAPR's motion asserted that Prichard, 40, Wausau, had suffered an injury as a result of an automobile accident that substantially interfered with his practice of law, that Prichard had failed to respond to BAPR's requests for information concerning a grievance of a former client, that Prichard had failed to appear at BAPR's offices as requested, and that Prichard had failed to provide a list of client files in his possession and turn over those files to the clients or to their successor counsel. BAPR further asserted that Prichard's continued practice of law while BAPR was awaiting Prichard's response to 10 pending grievances posed a threat to clients, the interests of the public, and the administration of justice.

On May 24, 2000, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered Prichard to show cause within 20 days why BAPR's motion for the temporary suspension of his license should not be granted. Prichard did not file a response to the court's order to show cause. On June 26, 2000, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued an order granting BAPR's motion and temporarily suspended Prichard's law license effective on the date of the order. The court further ordered that within 10 days of the order that Prichard turn over to BAPR all client files in pending matters that remained in his possession, together with a list of the files.