|
|
Navigation |
Vol. 72, No. 12, December
1999 |
Lawyer Discpline
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.
Disciplinary Proceeding Against Jane A. Edgar
On Oct. 26, 1999, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered a two-year
suspension of the law license of Jane Edgar, Milwaukee, 40, commencing
March 22, 1999, the date that the court had temporarily suspended
her license. In addition, the court ordered her to pay the costs
of the disciplinary proceeding.
Edgar represented a woman in her divorce. When the homestead
was sold in July 1997, the proceeds were turned over to Edgar
to hold in trust. On July 24, 1997, Edgar opened a savings account
into which she deposited $100,000 of the proceeds, and she entitled
it an "escrow" account. Between Sept. 26, 1997, and
April 6, 1998, Edgar made withdrawals from the account in the
amounts of $4,000, $5,000, and $2,000, without the knowledge
or consent of her client, the adverse party, or his counsel.
Opposing counsel received information indicating a possible
shortage in the account and confronted Edgar. In response, Edgar
wrote a detailed letter to opposing counsel misrepresenting that
she was "shocked" to find that she had "mistakenly"
withdrawn $11,000 from the escrow account, instead of from another
account she had at the same bank. She then replaced the funds
on April 21, 1998, with interest.
When the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (BAPR)
initiated an investigation, Edgar admitted that the withdrawals
were made knowingly, not in error. Edgar's conversion of
trust monies to her own use constituted a violation of SCR
20:1.15(a) and SCR
20:8.4(c).
During the investigation, it was determined that Edgar did
not have a client trust account. Instead, she used a single checking
account for receipt and disbursement of client funds for a business
account and for personal expenses. By commingling personal funds
with client funds and not maintaining an IOLTA trust account,
Edgar violated SCR
20:1.15(a). In addition, Edgar did not keep the required
client trust account records, such as individual client ledgers
and monthly reconciliation of bank statements, and she falsely
certified on her Annual Bar Dues statements that she had kept
such records, all in violation of SCR
20:1.15(e) and SCR
20:8.4(c). Edgar had no prior discipline.
Disciplinary Proceeding Against Keith E. Halverson
On April 27, 1999, the Wisconsin Supreme Court publicly reprimanded
Keith E. Halverson, 61, Menomonie, for professional misconduct.
In its order, the court directed Halverson to pay the costs of
the disciplinary proceeding within 60 days and specified that
if the costs were not paid within that time and absent his showing
to the court his inability to do so, his law license would be
suspended until further order of the court. Halverson did not
timely pay the costs, ignored correspondence from BAPR in the
matter, and did not avail himself of the opportunity to contact
BAPR to discuss a payment plan.
BAPR filed a motion to suspend Halverson's law license
for his failure to comply with the court's April 27, 1999
order. On Oct. 7, 1999, the court granted BAPR's motion
and suspended Halverson's law license until further order
of the court.
Disciplinary Proceeding Against John P. Louderman III
On Oct. 26, 1999, the Wisconsin Supreme Court publicly reprimanded
John P. Louderman III, 52, Madison, for his failure to send a
Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to a circuit court
for its approval in a divorce action until more than six years
after being ordered by the court to do so.
Louderman represented a client in a divorce that commenced
in 1989. In October 1990 the court issued a memorandum decision
which, in part, awarded the wife one-half of the husband's
defined retirement benefits through a QDRO and directed Louderman
to prepare the QDRO for the court's review. Between February
1991, and January 1993, Louderman took initial steps towards
preparing the QDRO. It was not until March 4, 1997, however,
that he submitted the QDRO to the court for review.
The supreme court adopted the referee's conclusion that
by not sending the QDRO to the circuit court for its approval
until more than six years after being ordered to do so, Louderman
failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing
a client, contrary to SCR
20:1.3. In imposing a public reprimand, the supreme court
took note that no one suffered any financial loss as a result
of Louderman's neglect, although access to the husband's
pension funds was delayed. The supreme court also noted that
Louderman previously has received three private reprimands for
professional misconduct.
Disciplinary Proceeding Against Mario M. Martinez
On May 6, 1999, the Wisconsin Supreme Court revoked the law
license of Mario M. Martinez, 39, Wauwatosa, but held the issue
of restitution in abeyance, pending further input from BAPR.
(See, 72 Wis. Law. 49 (July 1999).) BAPR subsequently
provided the court with a revised list of the clients and third
parties from whom funds, totaling $157,907.96, had been converted.
The revised list included a breakdown of funds owed to a medical
care provider with known liens against several personal injury
settlements. On Oct. 11, 1999, the court issued an order requiring
Martinez to make restitution within 60 days of the order, in
accordance with BAPR's revised restitution chart.
Disciplinary Proceeding Against William D. Whitnall
The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law license of William
D. Whitnall, 57, Racine, for 60 days, commencing Nov. 22, 1999.
In addition, the court ordered that Whitnall pay the costs of
the disciplinary proceeding.
Whitnall represented a client on felony charges of possession
of marijuana and recklessly endangering safety, and in a civil
forfeiture action brought by the prosecutor to seize the car
the client was driving at the time of the crime. In the criminal
matter, Whitnall failed to appear for the preliminary hearing
and the pretrial. In the civil matter, Whitnall failed to timely
file an answer and failed to make two court appearances, resulting
in the striking of the answer and the seizure of the car by default.
The court found that Whitnall violated SCR
20:1.3 by failing to timely file the answer and by failing
to appear for two motion hearings in the civil matter.
In a second matter, a client filed a grievance in August 1997
relating to Whitnall's representation of him in a sentence
modification matter. Whitnall failed to respond to two letters
of inquiry from BAPR staff and did not provide a response to
the grievance until Dec. 4, 1997. The court found that Whitnall,
therefore, failed to cooperate with BAPR's investigation,
in violation of SCR 21.03(4)
and 22.07(2).
The court noted that the failure to cooperate was mitigated by
Whitnall's health problems at the time of the initial inquiry.
The court further noted, as an aggravating factor, Whitnall's
prior discipline on three occasions for similar misconduct. Whitnall
received a private reprimand in 1986, an 18-month suspension
in 1992, and a 60-day suspension in 1994.
|