Vol. 71, No. 12,
December 1998
Professional Discipline
Disciplinary proceeding
against Donald J. Harman
On Oct. 8, 1998, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered a public reprimand
of Donald J. Harman, 68, La Crosse. The reprimand is based on misconduct
by Harman while he was representing a client on a claim against a county
and certain of its officials concerning the client's arrest and incarceration.
More than 18 months after he was retained, Harman filed a federal civil
rights action on behalf of the client. It ultimately was determined by the
federal court that the filing occurred roughly one year after the statute
of limitations had terminated the client's cause of action. When the defendants
moved to dismiss, Harman filed nothing in response, nor did he request an
extension of time to file a brief or other materials in response to the
dismissal motion. Harman never notified his client of the motion to dismiss.
Harman's failure to file the lawsuit within the statute of limitations
constituted a violation of SCR 20:1.3, which requires a lawyer to act with
reasonable diligence and promptness on behalf of a client; Harman's failure
to respond at all to the motion to dismiss also violated SCR 20:1.3. Harman's
failure to communicate with the client regarding the existence of the motion
to dismiss constituted a failure to keep the client reasonably informed
about the status of a matter, in violation of SCR 20:1.4. The court stated
that Harman has demonstrated a lack of understanding of his professional
duties and an unwillingness to take responsibility for his misconduct.
Harman has prior discipline, in the form of a public reprimand imposed
by the court in 1987, and a public reprimand imposed by BAPR, with Harman's
consent, in 1989.
Disciplinary proceeding
against Joseph Jackson
On Oct. 15, 1998, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered a one-year suspension
of the law license of Joseph Jackson, 34, who formerly practiced in Madison.
The suspension is based on misconduct by Jackson in two separate matters.
In one matter, Jackson represented a client at the trial level in a criminal
case. After the client was convicted, the client informed Jackson that he
wanted to appeal, but Jackson checked "undecided" on the court
form and told the client that Jackson would be available for further discussion
of post-conviction relief. Contrary to SCR 20:1.3, Jackson never pursued
such discussions with the client, and no notice of intent to pursue post-conviction
relief was filed within the prescribed period.
In responding to the client's subsequent pro se motion for an extension
of time to file a notice of intent to seek post-conviction relief, the Wisconsin
Court of Appeals twice ordered Jackson to respond to the client's allegation
that Jackson had failed to file a notice of intent to appeal in accordance
with the client's instructions. Jackson failed to respond to either order,
in violation of SCR 20:3.4(c). Jackson left the Madison area during the
pendency of the client's grievance, without informing BAPR where he could
be located, in violation of SCR 21.03(4), and 22.07(2) and (3), which require
cooperation with BAPR investigations.
In a second matter, Jackson represented a client at sentencing in a probation
revocation case and on additional criminal charges. At the revocation sentencing
hearing, in violation of SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) and 20:8.4(c), Jackson misrepresented
to the court that a writ of certiorari appealing the probation revocation
was pending. Following conviction in the criminal case, but prior to sentencing,
Jackson, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c), sought and obtained $1,000 for the
claimed purpose of completing the writ of certiorari and doing further investigation,
acts which were never accomplished.
After sentencing, in further violation of SCR 20:8.4(c), Jackson misrepresented
to the client that he would seek post-conviction relief and file the notice
of intent accordingly. By failing to prepare and file the writ of certiorari
and notice of intent to pursue post-conviction relief, Jackson violated
SCR 20:1.3, which requires an attorney to act with reasonable diligence
and promptness on behalf of a client. In violation of SCR 20:1.4(a), Jackson
did not respond to the client's requests for information and documents,
nor did he provide the client with information as to where he could be reached.
Having failed to act on his client's behalf, Jackson, in violation of SCR
20:1.16(d), then apparently abandoned his practice, without providing reasonable
notice to the client, without telling the client where he could be reached,
and without returning papers and property to the client, including the additional
$1,000 he obtained.
In addition to imposing a one-year license suspension, the court ordered,
as a condition of reinstatement, that Jackson be required to provide BAPR
with a detailed accounting of work performed in the second matter and proof
that he refunded to the client any unearned portion of the retainer.
Disciplinary proceeding
against James H. Dumke
On Oct. 8, 1998, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law license
of James H. Dumke, 50, Janesville, for one year, commencing April 27, 1999,
the date on which Dumke's current disciplinary suspension is set to expire.
After being appointed counsel by the public defender for a person convicted
in March 1995, Dumke prepared a notice of intent to pursue post-conviction
relief, but the court file indicated that the notice was never filed. In
mid-April 1995 Dumke filed a motion in the court of appeals for an extension
of time to file the client's notice of intent to seek post-conviction relief.
The court extended the time for filing, but Dumke did not file a notice
of intent or any other document.
The client subsequently filed on his own behalf a motion seeking an extension
of time to file a notice of intent to pursue post-conviction relief. The
court of appeals ordered Dumke to state within 10 days whether the prior
extension had been put to good use or, if no notice was filed during the
previous extension, why it was not filed. In response, Dumke told the court
he did not receive its prior order and said that a notice of intent had
been filed, but he did not provide a copy of that notice or state when it
was filed. He said that if necessary, he would file another notice of intent.
The court ordered Dumke to research whether it was necessary to file or
re-file a notice of intent or, if that relief had been pursued, to provide
the court the details regarding the notice and its resolution. Dumke did
not respond to that order or to a subsequent order of the court of appeals
extending the time for a response.
Dumke did not respond to two written requests from the Board of Attorneys
Professional Responsibility (BAPR) for information regarding the matter.
He also did not respond to requests from the district professional responsibility
committee investigator.
In another case, Dumke was retained to represent a client in a divorce
case, for which Dumke received a $1,500 retainer. Dumke represented the
client for approximately two months, after which the client decided to retain
another attorney. When the client asked for a refund of the unused portion
of the retainer, Dumke said the retainer was nonrefundable. Dumke did not
respond to two letters from the district committee investigator to whom
the client's grievance was referred.
The court concluded that Dumke failed to act with reasonable diligence
in representing his client in the post-conviction matter, in violation of
SCR 20:1.3, and failed to cooperate with BAPR's investigation in the two
client matters, in violation of 21.03(4) and 22.07(2) and (3). The court
suspended Dumke's law license for one year following the suspension to which
his license now is subject. The court further imposed as a condition of
the reinstatement of his license that Dumke provide satisfactory evidence
to BAPR that he has received counseling or treatment specifically directed
to correcting his lack of ability or concern to represent clients promptly
and diligently.
Dumke has been disciplined three times previously for professional misconduct.
In 1990 Dumke received a public reprimand. In 1992 the court suspended his
law license for six months for neglecting clients' matters, failing to provide
competent representation, misrepresenting to clients the status of their
matters, failing to keep clients informed, failing to act with reasonable
diligence, failing to cooperate with BAPR, and, as a prosecutor, communicating
with a party known to be represented by counsel without that counsel's consent.
In March 1998 the court suspended Dumke's law license for one year, commencing
April 27, 1998, for neglecting a client's matter, engaging in misrepresentations,
failing to keep a client informed, and failing to cooperate with BAPR.
Disciplinary proceeding
against Bruce S. Johnson
On Oct. 15, 1998, the Wisconsin Supreme Court revoked the law license
of Bruce S. Johnson, 32, who formerly practiced in Luck, Wis. The revocation
stemmed from findings of misconduct in four matters.
In the first matter, in violation of SCR 20:1.3, Johnson failed to timely
file an amended complaint in a matter before the State Equal Rights Division,
resulting in dismissal of the case; and, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a),
failed to provide the client with accurate information regarding case status.
Johnson also represented a relative of the client on a Social Security claim,
and, in violation of SCR 20:1.3, failed to timely request a hearing or in
any other way respond to a directive received from the Social Security Administration.
Johnson again violated SCR 20:1.4(a) by failing to provide accurate information
to the client regarding case status.
In a second matter, Johnson was retained to probate an estate in which
he also agreed to serve as special administrator for purposes of conveying
the decedent's real estate. The property was sold, but Johnson, in violation
of SCR 20:1.15(b), failed to make distributions or provide accountings to
the beneficiaries. In violation of SCR 20:1.3, Johnson failed to pursue
the probate beyond recording the deed conveying the property. In violation
of SCR 20:1.4(a), Johnson provided no response to a beneficiary who repeatedly
telephoned Johnson's office requesting information about the distribution
of the sale proceeds.
In a third matter, Johnson was hired to foreclose on a land contract.
Johnson never commenced a court action; but, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c),
made a series of misrepresentations to the client regarding a purported
court action, including: that a court date had been obtained; upon the client's
arrival from another state to attend the purported foreclosure hearing,
that the proceeding had been rescheduled; that the client should make herself
available to be included via telephone for the purported rescheduled hearing;
that the court had ruled in the client's favor; and that papers would be
sent to the client after they were signed by the judge. The client telephoned
Johnson several times to learn why she had received no papers concerning
the purported judgment, and Johnson made the further misrepresentation that
he had tried to call the judge the preceding evening but that the judge
was out of town. The client later discovered that no action had been commenced
on her behalf. By failing to respond to numerous telephone inquiries from
the client and by otherwise failing to provide the client with accurate
information regarding the status of the matter, Johnson violated SCR 20:1.4(a).
The fourth matter concerned Johnson's probate of an estate. Johnson failed
to timely file an inventory or otherwise act to complete the estate, in
violation of SCR 20:1.3. Johnson failed to respond to the beneficiaries'
requests for information or otherwise provide them with accurate information
regarding the status of the matter, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a). Johnson
misappropriated at least $4,495 of estate funds, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).
In each of the four matters, Johnson failed to respond to inquiries from
BAPR and the district professional responsibility committee to which the
cases had been referred, in violation of SCR 21.03(4) and 22.07(2) and (3).
In addition to license revocation, the court ordered Johnson to make
restitution and provide an accounting to the estate from which he misappropriated
funds.
|