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.
Private Reprimand Summaries
Public Reprimand of John D. Hanson
John D. Hanson, 60, Madison, has been publicly reprimanded
by the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (BAPR).
Hanson represented a woman who was divorced in 1985. The ex-husband
had sole custody and primary placement of the parties' two
minor children. Hanson's client was allowed reasonable visitation
and was ordered to pay child support of $130 per month.
On Oct. 11, 1989, Hanson filed a motion seeking joint legal
custody and primary placement of both children with his client.
Roughly one year later, a mediated agreement was reached, calling
for joint legal custody, with primary placement of the parties'
daughter going to Hanson's client and primary placement
of the son going to the ex-husband. It was further agreed that
the client's child support arrears came to $410, and that
her support obligation would cease with the change in placement.
Hanson was to draft a stipulation and order, without which the
client's support obligation would continue.
It was not until January 1995 that Hanson drafted a stipulation
and order reflecting the terms of the agreement struck in 1990.
By then, the ex-husband was no longer willing to stipulate, because
he learned of Hanson's client's intention to seek placement
of the parties' son.
Subsequent to October 1989, the client received monthly arrearage
notices, which Hanson advised her to ignore. Hanson reasoned
that while the original support terms had not been modified,
the principle of equitable estoppel would cause a forgiveness
of the arrears as of the time the minor daughter moved in with
the client. As the client's concern heightened, she tried
many times to reach Hanson, without success. On May 15, 1995,
unaware that her original child support obligation had never
been modified, the client wrote to Hanson and asked for a copy
of the "order to stop child support."
At a July 11, 1997, hearing on the county child support agency's
contempt motion, Hanson's client was found in contempt,
and her support arrearage was set at $12,222. Through successor
counsel, the client's arrearage was negotiated down to $9,262.50.
BAPR concluded that Hanson violated SCR
20:1.3 by failing to promptly draft the stipulation and order
that would have capped the client's support arrears at $410
and terminated her support obligation. BAPR further concluded
that Hanson violated SCR
20:1.4(a) by failing to respond to client inquiries or otherwise
provide reliable information as to the status of the matter.
Hanson was privately reprimanded by BAPR in 1982.
|