Vol. 75, No. 5, May
2002
Lawyer Discipline
The
Office of Lawyer
Regulation (formerly known as the Board of Attorneys Professional
Responsibility), an agency of the Wisconsin Supreme Court and component
of the lawyer regulation system, assists the court in carrying out its
constitutional responsibility to supervise the practice of law and
protect the public from misconduct by persons practicing law in
Wisconsin. The Office of Lawyer Regulation has offices located at Suite
315, 110 E. Main St., Madison, WI 53703, and Suite 300, 342 N. Water
St., Milwaukee, WI 53202. Toll-free telephone: (877) 315-6941.
Disciplinary
Proceedings against Sharon A. Davison
The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the Wisconsin law license of
Sharon A. Davison, Milwaukee, for six months, effective April 26, 2002.
Davison's professional misconduct consisted of submitting false vouchers
to the State Public Defender's Office (SPD) for parking expenses not
actually incurred, thereby engaging in conduct involving dishonesty,
fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).
Between 1992 and 1996, two salaried attorney-employees in Davison's
office received numerous SPD appointments. Davison's internal office
procedures required the attorneys to provide pre-signed, undated SPD
payment vouchers and their time/expense sheets to Davison. Davison
completed and submitted these vouchers to the SPD, without review by the
attorneys whose names appeared on the vouchers. The Office of Lawyer
Regulation (OLR) and Davison stipulated, and the referee and the supreme
court found, that on between 99 to 210 occasions, Davison submitted for
reimbursement of parking expenses that had not actually been incurred,
and that the aggregate amount of the improper submissions totaled
between $868 and $2,249.
In addition to suspending Davison's law license, the court ordered
Davison to make restitution to the SPD in an amount to be determined by
the OLR. Davison also was ordered to pay the $8,717.21 costs of the
disciplinary proceeding.
Disciplinary Proceedings against
Kathryn P. Karlsson
On Nov. 29, 2001, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law
license of Kathryn P. Karlsson, 55, Milwaukee, for nine months,
effective Jan. 4, 2002. In addition, the court ordered Karlsson to
refund $800 to one client and $100 to another client. The court ordered
Karlsson to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings, and further
ordered that, upon reinstatement of her law license, Karlsson arrange
for another attorney to monitor her cases and submit quarterly status
reports to the OLR.
The court found that Karlsson had committed 12 counts of professional
misconduct involving seven of her clients, as alleged in the complaint;
in addition, the court found Karlsson had committed seven counts of
noncooperation with the OLR in its disciplinary investigation, as
alleged in the complaint.
In the first matter, the court found that Karlsson had failed to act
with reasonable diligence and promptness (SCR 20:1.3) in representing
her client, T.S., who had retained Karlsson to represent her in a
divorce action. T.S. made numerous unsuccessful attempts to contact
Karlsson during the representation (SCR 20:1.4(a)).
In a second matter, Karlsson was retained in the spring of 1997 to
represent E.G. in a custody and visitation dispute. Karlsson agreed that
E.G. could make installment payments toward the retainer fee and that if
E.G. ultimately chose not to file suit, the payments would be returned.
E.G. thereafter made at least three $50 payments to Karlsson for the
prepayment of legal fees. In addition, E.G.'s mother also made four
payments to Karlsson on behalf of E.G. The court found that Karlsson
performed no services for E.G. and that, in fact, E.G. appeared pro se
at a subsequent hearing, where she was able to resolve the custody issue
herself. In addition, Karlsson did not respond to E.G.'s and her
mother's letters requesting refunds of the retainer payments. Although
Karlsson eventually returned some of the money, she had failed to return
$100 to E.G. (SCR 20:1.16(d)).
In a third matter, Karlsson had been retained by P.M. to represent
her in a post-judgment divorce matter in May 1997, and P.M. paid
Karlsson a $1,500 fee advance. After P.M. provided certain material to
Karlsson at her office, Karlsson had no further contact with P.M. for
the next year. Although P.M. subsequently sent Karlsson three letters
between June and September 1998 requesting the return of her divorce
file and a return of a portion of the advance fee, Karlsson did not
reply (SCR 20:1.16(d)). In April 1999, P.M. obtained a $1,500 small
claims judgment against Karlsson; however, Karlsson did not pay that
judgment until March 2000, after the OLR's investigator had contacted
Karlsson about this grievance.
In a fourth matter, in July 1994 Karlsson was retained by C.M. to
represent her in a personal injury claim stemming from a July 7, 1994,
automobile accident. In March 1997, nearly four months before the
statute of limitations on C.M.'s personal injury claim was to expire,
C.M. forwarded the final medical bill related to the accident to
Karlsson along with a letter requesting information on the status of the
case. Karlsson did not respond to that letter or to C.M.'s follow-up
letters in July 1997 and October 1997. C.M. and her husband thereafter
made a series of telephone calls to Karlsson and sent her another letter
in May 1998; again Karlsson made no response to the calls or letters
(SCR 20:1.4(a)). Karlsson had failed to send a demand letter to the
insurance company involved in C.M.'s claim before the statute of
limitations on that claim expired or to file suit before the statute of
limitations expired (SCR 20:1.3).
In a fifth matter, in February 1993 Karlsson was retained by D.C. to
represent him in a bankruptcy matter; D.C. paid Karlsson $800 as a
retainer. The retainer agreement provided that it was "for bankruptcy
... flat fee." Thereafter, D.C. met with Karlsson three times to
complete the necessary paperwork. Subsequently, D.C. made what he
estimated to be 30 to 40 phone calls to Karlsson seeking information
about the bankruptcy matter. Karlsson's own message slips in her office
file for the D.C. bankruptcy reflect that she had failed to respond to
at least four or five of D.C.'s calls (SCR 20:1.4(a)). After six years,
D.C.'s bankruptcy still had not been filed (SCR 20:1.3). Karlsson never
filed the bankruptcy matter on behalf of D.C. and never refunded the
$800 retainer fee to him (SCR 20:1.16(d)).
In a sixth matter, in October 1993 P.M. retained Karlsson to
represent him in a personal injury action stemming from injuries P.M.
had sustained on Oct. 2, 1993. Karlsson subsequently filed a personal
injury action on behalf of P.M. on Oct. 2, 1996. The defendant in that
personal injury action then moved to dismiss it for failure to prosecute
and for failure to answer written discovery requests, failure to appear
at scheduled depositions, and failure to file a witness list. Even
though the motion to dismiss the personal injury action had been denied,
the circuit court had assessed $498 in costs against P.M. Karlsson,
however, never notified P.M. of that assessment of costs. The circuit
court in the personal injury action ultimately granted summary judgment
against P.M. as to all but one of the defendants, and entered judgment
against P.M. for costs in the amount of $412.34.
Although default judgment in favor of P.M. against the remaining
defendant in the amount of $5,000 was later granted, Karlsson never
prepared an order for the circuit court's signature and that judgment
was never entered (SCR 20:1.3), nor did she inform P.M. about that
judgment. When P.M. later received information that his personal injury
action had been resolved, he and his father made numerous telephone
calls to Karlsson in May and June 1999 seeking information about the
status of his case. P.M. also sent Karlsson a certified letter asking
for information, but she did not respond (SCR 20:1.4(a)).
In a seventh matter, in January 1996 Karlsson was retained by D.D. to
represent her in a partition action involving real estate D.D. had
purchased with a friend. After she was retained by D.D., Karlsson
contacted the parties in the real estate transaction and discovered that
the land contract had never been recorded. Karlsson, on behalf of her
client, D.D., recorded the land contract and wrote several letters to
opposing parties, but the matter was not resolved at that time. More
than three years after she had been retained, Karlsson met with D.D. to
review the summons and complaint Karlsson had drafted in the partition
action. Several months later Karlsson informed D.D. that she was winding
down her law practice and that she would refer the partition matter to
another attorney. However, Karlsson never referred the partition case to
another attorney and never filed the summons and complaint she had
drafted on D.D.'s behalf (SCR 20:1.3).
In each of the seven matters, Karlsson failed to respond to several
letters from OLR staff requesting a response to the grievance. Karlsson
also failed to appear at an investigative interview, failed to respond
to phone calls from a district committee investigator, and failed to
ever provide a written response to any of the seven grievances (SCR
21.03(4) and SCR 22.07).
Wisconsin Lawyer
