Sign In
    Wisconsin Lawyer
    September 01, 2002

    Lawyer Discipline

    Wisconsin LawyerWisconsin Lawyer
    Vol. 75, No. 9, September 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.

    Public Reprimand of Michael M. Cassidy

    The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Michael M. Cassidy, 56, Madison, entered into an agreement for imposition of a public reprimand, pursuant to SCR 22.09(1). A referee appointed by the supreme court thereafter approved the agreement and issued the public reprimand in accordance with SCR 22.09(3).

    Cassidy, a partner in a Madison law firm, became ineligible to practice law in Wisconsin in June 1998 because of noncompliance with 1996-97 mandatory continuing education requirements. Cassidy practiced law for the next three years with a suspended license. Cassidy's law practice during the suspension included municipal matters, small claims and circuit court trials, real estate, probate and general business matters, and preparation of wills.

    Cassidy's practice while suspended was first reported in a Madison newspaper article that appeared in July 2001. The article described Cassidy's representation of a town in a pending lawsuit with a city over an annexation matter. The city and other defendants had moved to dismiss the action on the ground that the pleadings were defective because Cassidy signed and filed them while his license was suspended. The court dismissed the case with prejudice. The town has appealed, and Cassidy settled matters with the town by paying damages resulting from the dismissal of the action. Other instances of unlicensed practice were discovered in the course of an investigation conducted by the OLR. Cassidy's license was reinstated on Aug. 15, 2001.

    By practicing law while suspended for noncompliance with mandatory continuing education requirements, Cassidy violated SCR 31.10(1) and 20:8.4(f). Cassidy had no prior disciplinary record.

    Top of page

    Petition to Reinstate Donald J. Harman

    On Oct. 9, 2002, at 10 a.m., a public hearing will be held before Referee Linda Balisle at 131 W. Wilson St., Suite 802, Madison, on the petition of Donald J. Harman, La Crosse, to reinstate his Wisconsin law license. Any interested person may appear at the hearing and be heard in support of, or in opposition to, the petition for reinstatement.

    The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended Harman's license for six months, effective Aug. 1, 2001, based upon Harman' s commission of multiple acts of professional misconduct consisting of: 1) endorsing a settlement check on behalf of a subrogated carrier without authorization to do so; 2) failing to provide prompt written notice to the subrogated carrier that he was holding funds to which it was entitled, and failing to deliver those funds; 3) holding funds in trust in which he had a partial interest and thereafter making trust disbursements prior to an agreed severance of interest in the funds; 4) undertaking a case in which his representation was materially limited by his responsibilities to another client; 5) intentionally and without authorization revealing sensitive information relating to his representation of a client; 6) arranging for a meeting in his office in knowing violation of a no-contact order; 7) using information related to his representation of a former client to her disadvantage while cross-examining her during his representation of a different client; and 8) using information related to his representation of a former client to her disadvantage by sending her medical records to a district attorney's office, clerk of court, public defender's office, guardian ad litem, and a women's shelter in an effort to undermine his former client's credibility.

    A more detailed rendition of the relevant facts, findings, and conclusions concerning Harman's misconduct can be found in Disciplinary Proceedings Against Harman, 2001 WI 71, 244 Wis. 2d 438, 628 N.W.2d 362.

    As to reinstatement, Harman is required to demonstrate by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that, among other things, he has not practiced law during the suspension; he has maintained competence and learning in the law by attending identified educational activities; his conduct since the suspension has been exemplary and above reproach; he has a proper understanding of and attitude toward the standards that are imposed upon members of the bar and will act in conformity with the standards; he can safely be recommended to the legal profession, the courts, and the public as a person fit to be consulted by others and to represent them and otherwise act in matters of trust and confidence and in general to aid in the administration of justice as a member of the bar and as an officer of the courts; he has fully described all of his business activities during the period of suspension; he has the moral character to practice law in Wisconsin; his resumption of the practice of law will not be detrimental to the administration of justice or subversive of the public interest; and he has fully complied with the terms of the suspension order and with the requirements of SCR 22.26.

    Further information may be obtained from either OLR Investigator Kay Sievers, 110 E. Main St., Suite 315, Madison, WI 53703-3383, (877) 315-6941 (toll free); or from OLR Retained Counsel Robert G. Krohn, 24 N. Henry St., P.O. Box 151, Edgerton, WI 53534-0151, (608) 884-3391.

    Top of page

    Disciplinary Proceeding Against David L. Nichols

    The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law license of David L. Nichols, 47, Brillion, for six months effective July 19, 2002, for professional misconduct.

    Nichols did not contest four counts alleging misconduct in two client representations. The first count alleged that Nichols had filed a frivolous negligence/defamation action against a psychologist who had given adverse testimony regarding Nichols' client in a custody and placement dispute, which action was contrary to SCR 20:3.1(a)(1). The third count alleged that Nichols failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in concluding probate of an estate, contrary to SCR 20:1.3. The second and fourth counts involved Nichols' failure to cooperate in the investigations by the OLR, contrary to former SCR 21.03(4) and SCR 22.07(3), as well as the newer SCR 22.03(2), 22.03(6), and 21.15(4), which took effect on Oct. 1, 2000.

    The court noted that Nichols' license previously had been suspended for 60 days for continuing to practice law while administratively suspended. The court agreed with the referee's recommendation that a six-month license suspension was appropriate discipline. Nichols was also ordered to pay the costs of the proceeding within 60 days.

    Top of page

    Public Reprimand of Thomas L. O'Neil

    The OLR and Thomas L. O'Neil, 55, Johnson Creek, entered into an agreement for imposition of a public reprimand pursuant to SCR 22.09(1). A referee appointed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court thereafter approved the agreement, and issued the public reprimand in accordance with SCR 22.09(3).

    In December 1996, O'Neil was retained to represent a client in a civil lawsuit in which the client was named as the defendant. As the case progressed, the plaintiff requested material related to the client's personal checking account, including copies of personal checks. O'Neil agreed to provide copies of the checks, but discovered that it would be necessary to have copies made by the bank at a charge of $2 per check. O'Neil admits that after learning of the bank charges, he told the client not to worry about producing the checks, while at the same time informing opposing counsel that he was having difficulty in obtaining the checks from his client.

    In November 1998, after several requests to produce copies of the checks had not been met, the plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions. On Nov. 9, 1998, O'Neil appeared at the motion hearing and entered into a stipulation and order regarding the production of the checks and the payment of the plaintiff's attorney fees as a sanction for failing to produce the checks. The amount of the sanctions was $1,150. O'Neil paid the sanctions from his own funds and did not inform the client of the sanctions until September 1999.

    For the next 11 months, O'Neil failed to inform his client of the stipulation and order to produce copies of the checks. O'Neil also failed to produce the copies of the checks to the plaintiffs. On Aug. 19, 1999, the court signed an order granting judgment in favor of the plaintiff. O'Neil did not inform the client of this judgment. A hearing was then scheduled for Sept. 9, 1999, to determine the damages to be awarded to the plaintiff. O'Neil did not inform his client of this hearing. At the hearing on Sept. 9, 1999, O'Neil informed the court that he had not advised his client of the judgment and the hearing. The court then scheduled another hearing for Sept. 17, 1999, to determine how to proceed in the case.

    On Sept. 10, 1999, O'Neil informed his client of his mishandling of the case and of the Sept. 17, 1999, hearing. The client retained new counsel and the Aug. 19, 1999, order of judgment was not entered or docketed against the client. O'Neil also acknowledges that he failed to promptly respond to several of the client's requests for information regarding the status of the case.

    By entering into a stipulation concerning the production of documents without informing or obtaining the consent of his client, O'Neil failed to inform and consult with his client regarding the objectives of the representation, in violation of SCR 20:1.2(a). By failing to produce documents as stipulated and ordered by the court, O'Neil failed to act with diligence, in violation of SCR 20:1.3. By failing to inform his client of a stipulation, order, hearing, and judgment, and by failing to respond to his client's request for information regarding the status of the case, O'Neil failed to communicate with his client, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a) and (b). By making misrepresentations regarding the nature of requests for documents and by failing to inform his client of a stipulation, order, hearing, and judgment, O'Neil engaged in acts of dishonesty, deceit, and misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).

    Top of page

    Disciplinary Proceeding Against Jack U. Shlimovitz

    The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the Wisconsin law license of Jack U. Shlimovitz, Milwaukee, for two years, effective July 11, 2002. Based upon a stipulation between Shlimovitz and the OLR, the court held that Shlimovitz committed the federal criminal offense of knowingly disobeying a lawful rule of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, contrary to 18 U.S.C. § 401(3), by his act of knowingly submitting false information to a bankruptcy court, thereby committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on Shlimovitz's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in violation of SCR 20:8.4(b).

    Shlimovitz represented a debtor in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding. In the bankruptcy petition filed on Jan. 18, 2000, Shlimovitz listed the value of the debtor's home as $70,000. When he filed the petition, Shlimovitz knew the home was valued at well over $70,000. In 1999 Shlimovitz had arranged for an appraisal of the home that valued it at $160,000. In addition, prior to filing the bankruptcy petition, Shlimovitz knew that a potential purchaser of the home had obtained a $128,000 mortgage from a bank and that the tax assessed value of the home was $189,000. On Nov. 11, 2000, the bankruptcy estate sold the home for $155,000.

    On July 17, 2001, Shlimovitz was charged in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin with one count of willfully disobeying a lawful rule of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 401(3). He entered into a plea agreement. On Nov. 8, 2001, Shlimovitz pleaded guilty to the charge, was convicted, and was sentenced to two years' probation. Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, Shlimovitz agreed to surrender his law license for five years following his sentencing.

    The court previously had publicly reprimanded Shlimovitz on March 15, 1994, for permitting an associate to work on a bankruptcy matter that the associate had previously worked on while employed by the U.S. Trustee's Office, and for related misrepresentations in connection with billing these services.

    Top of page


Join the conversation! Log in to comment.

News & Pubs Search

-
Format: MM/DD/YYYY