Vol. 70, No. 5, May
1997
Professional Discipline
Disciplinary Proceeding Against Keith E. Broadnax
The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law license of Keith E. Broadnax,
40, Milwaukee, for 90 days, effective March 12, 1997. The court also ordered
that for three years Broadnax comply with specified conditions directed
to his rehabilitation from alcohol and chemical dependency. Those conditions
include random drug testing and quarterly reports from his doctor. Broadnax
also was ordered to pay restitution to a client and the cost of the disciplinary
proceedings.
Broadnax was paid a $500 retainer to defend a client in an action brought
by an insurance company. Broadnax failed to attend a scheduled pretrial
hearing, resulting in a default judgment against his client. Broadnax asked
the insurer's attorney to agree to reopen the case but filed no motion to
reopen the default judgment. Moreover, Broadnax did not inform his client
that the $6,500 default judgment had been entered against him. Several months
later, the same client was named defendant in an action by another insurer
arising out of the same matter. Broadnax did not file a notice of appearance
or answer to the complaint, and the plaintiff obtained a default judgment
in the amount of $13,291 against the client. The client did not learn of
either default judgment until he applied for a loan. Additionally, Broadnax
repeatedly promised to reopen the second judgment but took no action to
do so.
The court found that Broadnax failed to diligently represent the client
in the two matters, violating SCR 20:1.3; failed to keep the client reasonably
informed of the status of those matters, violating SCR 20:1.4(a); failed
to communicate the basis of his fee, contrary to SCR 20:1.5(b); and failed
to refund the client's $500 retainer, violating SCR 20:1.16(d). In addition,
Broadnax failed to respond to numerous Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility
(BAPR) requests for information, contrary to SCR 21.03(4) and 22.07(2).
In another matter, a client retained Broadnax to serve an eviction notice
upon a tenant, but the client immediately cancelled the representation when
the tenant paid the rent later that day. The client had given Broadnax a
check for $166 for his services, which Broadnax negotiated. When the client
repeatedly asked for return of her money, Broadnax told her that his "consulting
fee" was $60 and said he would return the remainder promptly. When
he did not do so, the client contacted BAPR which asked Broadnax for an
explanation. Broadnax did not respond to BAPR's requests for information.
The client ultimately received a $160 refund 11 months after Broadnax was
retained.
The court found that Broadnax failed to promptly return an advance payment
of fees, violating SCR 20:1.16(d); and failed to cooperate with BAPR's investigation,
violating SCR 21.03(4) and 22.07(2).
Broadnax also did not respond timely to requests for information from
BAPR investigating the grievances of two other clients. The court found
that in both matters Broadnax failed to cooperate with BAPR's investigations,
violating SCR 21.03(4) and 22.07(2).
Broadnax was privately reprimanded in 1989 for failing to timely file
the findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment in a divorce matter
and for his misrepresentation to BAPR during its subsequent investigation.
Disciplinary Proceeding Against Robert Glickman
On March 12, 1997, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law license
of Robert Glickman, 34, Atlanta, Ga., for 60 days. Glickman formerly practiced
in Madison.
In February 1992 Glickman filed a legal malpractice action on behalf
of a client in circuit court. Thereafter, Glickman did not comply with the
terms of the court's pretrial order setting a time for disclosing expert
witnesses, completing medical examinations and identifying and marking all
exhibits intended to be offered at trial. When opposing counsel filed a
motion seeking to prohibit the plaintiff from presenting the testimony of
any experts, Glickman did not file a response. At the end of the week preceding
the scheduled trial, Glickman filed a motion for a continuance. The court
granted the defense motion and denied the motion for continuance. The supreme
court adopted the referee's conclusion that Glickman failed to provide competent
representation, violating SCR 20:1.1, and failed to act with reasonable
diligence and promptness, violating SCR 20:1.3.
In a separate matter, the State Public Defender appointed Glickman to
represent a man who was sentenced to prison following the revocation of
his probation. Between his May 13, 1994, appointment and the reassignment
of the case to other counsel on Nov. 7, 1994, Glickman filed nothing to
either initiate review of the probation revocation or to convey to the court,
the PD and the client that such review would have no merit.
Glickman did not respond to the client's written and telephonic requests
for contact, nor did he respond to the SPD's written inquiries about the
case. Prior to the appointment of successor counsel, Glickman decided to
terminate his Wisconsin law practice, but he did not communicate that decision
to the client or the SPD. Glickman notified the courts of his decision to
close his law practice only after the client's case was assigned to other
counsel and further inquiries were received from the SPD.
In the second matter, Glickman was found to have violated SCR 20:1.3
and 20:1.4(a), which require an attorney to keep a client reasonably informed
of the status of a matter and to comply with reasonable requests for information,
and SCR 20:1.16(d), which requires an attorney, upon termination of representation,
to take reasonably practicable steps to protect a client's interests.
Disciplinary Proceeding Against Charles R. Koehn
Effective April 7, 1997, the Wisconsin Supreme Court imposed a 60-day
suspension on Charles R. Koehn, 53, Green Bay, based upon his misconduct
in four matters. In the first matter, Koehn knowingly disobeyed the rules
of a federal court by failing for one year to pay a fee to a witness whom
he had subpoenaed, contrary to SCR 20:3.4(c).
In the second matter, Koehn's client, who had been charged with municipal
ordinance battery, did not appear at a hearing on that charge, and Koehn
entered a plea of no contest on the client's behalf. Although the client
had authorized Koehn to engage in plea negotiations, the client had not
authorized a plea to the battery charge. The supreme court adopted the referee's
conclusion that Koehn's failure to inform the client he was unable to obtain
a reduction of the charge to disorderly conduct, and failure to inform the
client that Koehn would enter a no contest plea to the battery charge violated
SCR 20:1.4(a), which requires a lawyer to keep a client reasonably informed
of the status of a legal matter.
In the third matter, Koehn represented a client who was attempting to
obtain a reduction in his prison sentence. At a hearing on a motion to withdraw
the client's no contest plea, Koehn made misrepresentations to the circuit
court regarding the status of an appeal that he previously had filed on
the client's behalf. The supreme court adopted the referee's conclusion
that Koehn's misrepresentations of fact to the circuit court violated SCR
20:3.3(a)(1).
In the fourth matter, Koehn accepted a retainer of $1,500 to pursue a
collection matter. Although Koehn informed his client that he had sent a
demand letter to the debtor, he had never done so. Koehn repeatedly failed
to respond to the client's requests for information about the case status,
and the client terminated his services. Koehn did not return any part of
the client's retainer. Thereafter, the client sued Koehn in small claims
court and obtained a judgment for the entire amount of the fee. During trial
of the small claims matter, Koehn knowingly made false statements of fact
to the circuit court.
The supreme court concluded that Koehn's false statement to his client
violated SCR 20:8.4(c), which proscribes conduct involving misrepresentation;
his failure to keep the client reasonably informed about the case status
violated SCR 20:1.4(a); his failure to act with reasonable diligence violated
SCR 20:1.3; his failure to return the unearned retainer violated SCR 20:1.16(d);
and his misrepresentations of fact to the court during the small claims
trial violated SCR 20:3.3(a)(1).
Suspension of Robert G. Stuligross
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has suspended the law license of Robert G.
Stuligross, 33, Kenosha, for two years, effective March 20, 1997. The suspension
is based upon several violations to which Stuligross pleaded no contest,
including: 1) his unlicensed practice of law in Illinois (SCR 20:5.5(a));
2) his making a false statement of material fact to BAPR during its investigation
(SCR 20:8.1(a) and 22.07(2)); 3) his making false statements of fact to
a tribunal and engaging in conduct involving dishonesty by using another
attorney's bar identification number when filing pleadings in Illinois (SCR
20:3.3(a)(1) and 20:8.4(c)); 4) his engaging in conduct involving dishonesty,
fraud, deceit or misrepresentation by altering an Illinois court's order
to reflect that he had been admitted to appear in a case on a pro hac vice
basis (SCR 20:8.4(c)); 5) his use of a false and misleading letterhead (SCR
20:7.5(b)); and 6) his failure to timely, fully and fairly respond to BAPR's
investigative inquiries (SCR 21.03(4) and 22.07(2) and (3)).
Stuligross has no prior discipline, but he was denied a certificate of
good moral character by the dean of the law school from which he graduated,
based upon a two-year dismissal from the school. The dismissal stemmed from
his having falsified a date stamp on a discovery motion that was prepared
during a law school internship and from his making misrepresentations to
the law school committee that investigated that matter.
The unauthorized practice of law count stemmed from Stuligross's abuse
of pro hac vice admission privileges in Illinois while he was seeking a
law license in that state. Between May 1992 and at least June 1993 Stuligross
represented 47 clients in marital dissolution proceedings in Illinois circuit
courts. In addition, he appeared in eight other proceedings without any
such judicial authorization. When filing pleadings in those cases, he used
the attorney identification number of an Illinois attorney with whom he
shared office space, without making it clear to the court that the number
was not his own. In addition, Stuligross used a letterhead listing a Chicago
office address, without adding a disclaimer indicating that he was not licensed
in Illinois.
The court concluded that, since at least his law school days, Stuligross
had "established a pattern of serious misrepresentations to courts
and others, something that cannot be tolerated in a person this court licenses
to represent others in our legal system."
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 Room 102, 611 N. Broadway, Milwaukee,
WI 53202. |