Vol. 77, No. 4, April
2004
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 Proceeding against Mark E.
Converse
The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law license of Mark E.
Converse, 55, Green Bay, for 90 days, effective March 31, 2004.
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Converse, 2004 WI 10. Converse
stipulated to his commission of the misconduct charged by the Office of
Lawyer Regulation (OLR), but contested the 90-day license suspension
sought by the OLR. Converse's misconduct related to two client
matters.
In the first matter, a man who was serving six years in prison hired
Converse to file an appellate brief. Converse never filed a brief, even
though he told the client that there were grounds upon which to pursue
an appeal. After the court of appeals dismissed the client's criminal
appeal for failure to file a brief, Converse led the client to believe
he was still working on the brief. However, Converse abandoned the
appeal without the client's knowledge or consent and never filed either
a motion to withdraw from the case or a no-merit report. The client
eventually succeeded in having the original appeal reinstated and in
obtaining new appellate counsel.
The client filed a grievance against Converse. Converse initially
failed to respond to letters from the OLR.
By failing to file an appellate brief, Converse violated SCR 20:1.3.
By repeatedly assuring the client that he was working on the brief and
by providing false explanations as to why the brief was not finished,
when, in fact, he was not working on it, Converse violated SCR
20:8.4(c). By failing to respond to the OLR's letters, Converse violated
SCR 21.15(4), 22.03(2), and 22.03(6).
In the second matter, a client hired Converse to represent him in two
civil matters. One matter involved the client's claim that a person had
converted funds from him, and the second matter was a worker's
compensation case. Converse told the client his customary fee would be
in the range of 20 to 25 percent of any recovery. While Converse's fee
in the worker's compensation case was determined by statute, Converse
did not reduce to writing a contingent fee agreement for the civil law
suit. Converse also failed to respond to the OLR's letters requesting a
reply to the client's grievance.
By failing to reduce a contingent fee agreement to writing, Converse
violated SCR 20:1.5(c). By failing to respond to the OLR's requests for
information, Converse again violated SCR 21.15(4), 22.03(2), and
22.03(6).
In addition to imposing the 90-day license suspension, the court
ordered Converse to pay the $3,332.29 costs of the proceeding.
This is the fourth time that Converse has been disciplined. In 1985
he received a public reprimand for neglect and committing a conflict of
interest. In 1992 he was again publicly reprimanded for failing to
diligently pursue a client's criminal appeal and failing to turn over
the client's file to new counsel. Converse also was ordered to perform
200 hours of pro bono legal work. In 1994 Converse's license was
suspended for 60 days for failing to timely file federal and state
income tax returns.
Top of page
Disciplinary Proceeding
against Michael J. Collins
The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law license of Michael J.
Collins, 52, Madison, for 60 days, effective March 18, 2004.
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Collins, 2004 WI 9. The court
approved a stipulation between Collins and the OLR and found that
Collins committed eight counts of misconduct involving three client
matters.
In the first matter, Collins represented a man in a divorce. The
court required Collins to deposit an insurance settlement check into his
trust account and then to make arrangements with a lien holder on the
parties' vehicle. Collins did not deposit the check into his trust
account, nor did he instruct his client to endorse the check. It was not
until four months later and after the lien holder had made collection
attempts that the client learned he needed to endorse the check. The
client filed a grievance with the Board of Attorneys Professional
Responsibility (BAPR), the OLR's predecessor agency. Although Collins
initially responded to BAPR's letters, he later failed to provide
additional information that BAPR requested.
By failing to deposit the settlement check into his trust account,
Collins violated SCR 20:1.15(a). By failing to promptly deliver the
funds to the lien holder, despite the court's temporary order, Collins
violated SCR 20:1.15(b). By failing to promptly handle the check or make
past due payments to his client's lien holder, Collins violated SCR
20:1.3. By failing to follow the court's order requiring him to deposit
the check and contact the lien holder, Collins violated SCR 20:3.4(c).
By failing to respond to BAPR's and OLR's requests, Collins violated SCR
21.03(4) (1998), 22.07(3) (1998), 22.04(1), 21.15(4), and 22.03(2) (Oct.
1, 2000).
In the second matter, Collins represented a woman in a divorce. When
the court scheduled a hearing on the husband's motion for a date for
completing a property exchange, Collins intentionally did not timely
inform his client of the scheduled hearing because he believed her
presence at the hearing might be disruptive. Because the woman did not
attend the hearing, Collins did not raise some issues she wanted
addressed.
By deliberately not informing his client of a post-divorce hearing,
Collins violated SCR 20:1.4(a).
In the third matter, Collins was appointed to act as a minor's
guardian. The minor reached his 18th birthday, and Collins was required
to file a final guardian report. Collins did not timely file the report.
The court scheduled a hearing, but Collins failed to attend. The court
scheduled another hearing, but Collins still did not appear. The court
also wrote to Collins. When the final report still had not been filed
six months after it was due, the court reported Collins' neglect to
BAPR. Collins failed to timely provide a response to the grievance.
By failing to timely file a guardianship report and by failing to
attend two hearings, Collins violated SCR 20:1.3. By failing to timely
respond to requests from BAPR, Collins violated SCR 21.03(4) (1998) and
22.07(2) (1998).
Collins' prior disciplinary history consists of a 1989 public
reprimand and a 1995 public reprimand.
Top of page
Disciplinary Proceedings
against Leo Barron Hicks
On Feb. 27, 2004, the Wisconsin Supreme Court publicly reprimanded
Leo Barron Hicks, who formerly practiced in Madison, but now resides in
Texas.
The events giving rise to the misconduct counts against Hicks are
detailed within the court's disciplinary order. Essentially, Hicks
violated three rules: 1) failing to hold a client's property in trust,
separate from the lawyer's own property; 2) failing to take remedial
action when he knew of misconduct by another lawyer in his firm; and 3)
failing to treat property in which both the lawyer and another person
claim interests as trust property until there has been an accounting and
severance of their interests.
Hicks formerly practiced in association with Attorney Lauren
Brown-Perry. Brown-Perry's license was suspended for misconduct arising
out of mishandling of a client's funds. See Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Brown-Perry, 2003 WI 151, 267 Wis. 2d 184,
672 N.W.2d 287. Although Brown-Perry performed most, if not all, of that
client's legal work, Hicks was found to have had involvement in the
matter, by virtue of his signing checks disbursing funds that were
improperly deposited into the firm's business account; taking status
inquiry calls from the client; and opening a new account in the matter
but later removing the client's name from that account and renaming the
account as the law firm's IOLTA Trust Account.
In the disciplinary action, Hicks originally filed an answer,
affirmative defenses, and counterclaim in which he asserted that he
lacked knowledge of when Brown-Perry deposited the checks and that he
did not become personally aware, nor should he have become aware, that
his partner had commingled the client's funds until the OLR's inquiry.
Later, however, Hicks stipulated to withdraw his answer, plead no
contest, and allow the complaint to serve as the basis for establishing
the factual record in the matter.
Hicks argued that the OLR should be estopped from requesting a costs
assessment because, before the complaint was filed, the OLR offered
Hicks the opportunity to consent to a public reprimand and informed him
that if he consented, no costs would be sought. The OLR responded that
although it did offer Hicks the opportunity to resolve the matter
without costs prior to the filing of the complaint, Hicks declined at
that time and thereafter litigated the case nearly up to the scheduled
hearing date. The court assessed all of the disciplinary proceeding
costs against Hicks, pointing out that Hicks chose to litigate the
matter, and the OLR's incurred costs are therefore appropriately
assessed against him.
Hicks's Wisconsin law license has been under suspension since the
fall of 2001 for failure to pay State Bar dues and since mid-2002 for
failure to comply with mandatory CLE reporting requirements.
Top of page
Public Reprimand of Leroy
Jones
The OLR and Leroy Jones, 75, Milwaukee, entered into an agreement for
imposition of a public reprimand pursuant to SCR 22.09(1). A referee
appointed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court approved the agreement, and
issued the public reprimand on Feb. 19, 2004, in accordance with SCR
22.09(3). The reprimand is based upon Jones's conduct in one matter.
A man retained Jones to defend him on criminal charges stemming from
an altercation he had with correctional officers. The client was
represented by a public defender but was not satisfied with the
representation. The client paid Jones $1,500.
Trial was set for a day Jones was scheduled to be out of the state.
He told his client he would attempt to obtain an adjournment but would
be unable to represent him if he could not do so. Jones wrote to the
district attorney's office and informed the office that he had been
retained and was requesting an adjournment. He did not send a Notice of
Retainer or a Request for Adjournment to the court. Jones then spoke
with someone in the district attorney's office and, based upon
information he received during that conversation, told his client he was
almost certain he would not be able to get an adjournment.
Jones did no trial preparation and went out of state as planned. On
the eve of trial, his staff sent a Notice of Retainer and Request for
Adjournment to the court. The client was unaware these documents had not
previously been filed.
Because he had not been removed from the case, the public defender
had prepared for the trial. The public defender represented the client
at trial. After the client was convicted, his girlfriend spoke with
Jones about representing him in his appeal and gave him an additional
$400. Jones did no work on the appeal and failed to respond to the
client's inquiries about the matter.
During his initial meeting with Jones, the client had also discussed
bringing a civil action against the correctional officers involved in
the altercation. Jones told him he did not believe he would be
successful but agreed to look into the matter. Jones did no work and did
not inform the client that he would not be pursuing the matter, despite
at least one inquiry as to the status of the matter.
After a grievance was filed, Jones issued a full refund to the client
and his girlfriend. By failing to timely file a Notice of Retainer and
Request for Adjournment with the court, Jones failed to act with
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in
violation of SCR 20:1.3. By failing to inform his client that he had not
obtained an adjournment of his trial, Jones failed to keep a client
reasonably informed about the status of a matter, in violation of SCR
20:1.4(a).
By failing to take any steps to advance his client's appeal, Jones
failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a
client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3. By failing to respond to his
client's inquiries regarding his appeal, Jones failed to keep a client
reasonably informed about the status of a matter and to promptly comply
with reasonable requests for information, in violation of SCR
20:1.4(a).
By failing to take any steps to advance the civil matter, Jones
failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness, in violation of
SCR 20:1.3. By failing to inform his client that he would not be
pursuing the civil matter and by failing to respond to his client's
inquiry regarding his civil matter, Jones failed to keep a client
reasonably informed about the status of a matter and to promptly comply
with reasonable requests for information, in violation of SCR
20:1.4(a).
Jones previously was publicly reprimanded in 1984, 1990, 1991, and
1998. Moreover, his license was suspended for 60 days in 1991. In 1992,
his license was again suspended for 60 days, retroactive to mid-1991. A
third 60-day suspension was imposed in 1993. His misconduct in these
prior matters consisted of lack of diligence, failure to communicate,
mishandling of trust accounts, failure to cooperate, and making a false
statement of fact during a disciplinary proceeding.
Top of page
Wisconsin
Lawyer