Private Reprimand Summaries

 Professional Discipline

Disciplinary Proceeding Against Keith E. Broadnax

The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law license of Keith E. Broadnax, 40, Milwaukee, for 90 days, effective March 12, 1997. The court also ordered that for three years Broadnax comply with specified conditions directed to his rehabilitation from alcohol and chemical dependency. Those conditions include random drug testing and quarterly reports from his doctor. Broadnax also was ordered to pay restitution to a client and the cost of the disciplinary proceedings.

Broadnax was paid a $500 retainer to defend a client in an action brought by an insurance company. Broadnax failed to attend a scheduled pretrial hearing, resulting in a default judgment against his client. Broadnax asked the insurer's attorney to agree to reopen the case but filed no motion to reopen the default judgment. Moreover, Broadnax did not inform his client that the $6,500 default judgment had been entered against him. Several months later, the same client was named defendant in an action by another insurer arising out of the same matter. Broadnax did not file a notice of appearance or answer to the complaint, and the plaintiff obtained a default judgment in the amount of $13,291 against the client. The client did not learn of either default judgment until he applied for a loan. Additionally, Broadnax repeatedly promised to reopen the second judgment but took no action to do so.

The court found that Broadnax failed to diligently represent the client in the two matters, violating SCR 20:1.3; failed to keep the client reasonably informed of the status of those matters, violating SCR 20:1.4(a); failed to communicate the basis of his fee, contrary to SCR 20:1.5(b); and failed to refund the client's $500 retainer, violating SCR 20:1.16(d). In addition, Broadnax failed to respond to numerous Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (BAPR) requests for information, contrary to SCR 21.03(4) and 22.07(2).

In another matter, a client retained Broadnax to serve an eviction notice upon a tenant, but the client immediately cancelled the representation when the tenant paid the rent later that day. The client had given Broadnax a check for $166 for his services, which Broadnax negotiated. When the client repeatedly asked for return of her money, Broadnax told her that his "consulting fee" was $60 and said he would return the remainder promptly. When he did not do so, the client contacted BAPR which asked Broadnax for an explanation. Broadnax did not respond to BAPR's requests for information. The client ultimately received a $160 refund 11 months after Broadnax was retained.

The court found that Broadnax failed to promptly return an advance payment of fees, violating SCR 20:1.16(d); and failed to cooperate with BAPR's investigation, violating SCR 21.03(4) and 22.07(2).

Broadnax also did not respond timely to requests for information from BAPR investigating the grievances of two other clients. The court found that in both matters Broadnax failed to cooperate with BAPR's investigations, violating SCR 21.03(4) and 22.07(2).

Broadnax was privately reprimanded in 1989 for failing to timely file the findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment in a divorce matter and for his misrepresentation to BAPR during its subsequent investigation.

Disciplinary Proceeding Against Robert Glickman

On March 12, 1997, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law license of Robert Glickman, 34, Atlanta, Ga., for 60 days. Glickman formerly practiced in Madison.

In February 1992 Glickman filed a legal malpractice action on behalf of a client in circuit court. Thereafter, Glickman did not comply with the terms of the court's pretrial order setting a time for disclosing expert witnesses, completing medical examinations and identifying and marking all exhibits intended to be offered at trial. When opposing counsel filed a motion seeking to prohibit the plaintiff from presenting the testimony of any experts, Glickman did not file a response. At the end of the week preceding the scheduled trial, Glickman filed a motion for a continuance. The court granted the defense motion and denied the motion for continuance. The supreme court adopted the referee's conclusion that Glickman failed to provide competent representation, violating SCR 20:1.1, and failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness, violating SCR 20:1.3.

In a separate matter, the State Public Defender appointed Glickman to represent a man who was sentenced to prison following the revocation of his probation. Between his May 13, 1994, appointment and the reassignment of the case to other counsel on Nov. 7, 1994, Glickman filed nothing to either initiate review of the probation revocation or to convey to the court, the PD and the client that such review would have no merit.

Glickman did not respond to the client's written and telephonic requests for contact, nor did he respond to the SPD's written inquiries about the case. Prior to the appointment of successor counsel, Glickman decided to terminate his Wisconsin law practice, but he did not communicate that decision to the client or the SPD. Glickman notified the courts of his decision to close his law practice only after the client's case was assigned to other counsel and further inquiries were received from the SPD.

In the second matter, Glickman was found to have violated SCR 20:1.3 and 20:1.4(a), which require an attorney to keep a client reasonably informed of the status of a matter and to comply with reasonable requests for information, and SCR 20:1.16(d), which requires an attorney, upon termination of representation, to take reasonably practicable steps to protect a client's interests.

Disciplinary Proceeding Against Charles R. Koehn

Effective April 7, 1997, the Wisconsin Supreme Court imposed a 60-day suspension on Charles R. Koehn, 53, Green Bay, based upon his misconduct in four matters. In the first matter, Koehn knowingly disobeyed the rules of a federal court by failing for one year to pay a fee to a witness whom he had subpoenaed, contrary to SCR 20:3.4(c).

In the second matter, Koehn's client, who had been charged with municipal ordinance battery, did not appear at a hearing on that charge, and Koehn entered a plea of no contest on the client's behalf. Although the client had authorized Koehn to engage in plea negotiations, the client had not authorized a plea to the battery charge. The supreme court adopted the referee's conclusion that Koehn's failure to inform the client he was unable to obtain a reduction of the charge to disorderly conduct, and failure to inform the client that Koehn would enter a no contest plea to the battery charge violated SCR 20:1.4(a), which requires a lawyer to keep a client reasonably informed of the status of a legal matter.

In the third matter, Koehn represented a client who was attempting to obtain a reduction in his prison sentence. At a hearing on a motion to withdraw the client's no contest plea, Koehn made misrepresentations to the circuit court regarding the status of an appeal that he previously had filed on the client's behalf. The supreme court adopted the referee's conclusion that Koehn's misrepresentations of fact to the circuit court violated SCR 20:3.3(a)(1).

In the fourth matter, Koehn accepted a retainer of $1,500 to pursue a collection matter. Although Koehn informed his client that he had sent a demand letter to the debtor, he had never done so. Koehn repeatedly failed to respond to the client's requests for information about the case status, and the client terminated his services. Koehn did not return any part of the client's retainer. Thereafter, the client sued Koehn in small claims court and obtained a judgment for the entire amount of the fee. During trial of the small claims matter, Koehn knowingly made false statements of fact to the circuit court.

The supreme court concluded that Koehn's false statement to his client violated SCR 20:8.4(c), which proscribes conduct involving misrepresentation; his failure to keep the client reasonably informed about the case status violated SCR 20:1.4(a); his failure to act with reasonable diligence violated SCR 20:1.3; his failure to return the unearned retainer violated SCR 20:1.16(d); and his misrepresentations of fact to the court during the small claims trial violated SCR 20:3.3(a)(1).

Suspension of Robert G. Stuligross

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has suspended the law license of Robert G. Stuligross, 33, Kenosha, for two years, effective March 20, 1997. The suspension is based upon several violations to which Stuligross pleaded no contest, including: 1) his unlicensed practice of law in Illinois (SCR 20:5.5(a)); 2) his making a false statement of material fact to BAPR during its investigation (SCR 20:8.1(a) and 22.07(2)); 3) his making false statements of fact to a tribunal and engaging in conduct involving dishonesty by using another attorney's bar identification number when filing pleadings in Illinois (SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) and 20:8.4(c)); 4) his engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation by altering an Illinois court's order to reflect that he had been admitted to appear in a case on a pro hac vice basis (SCR 20:8.4(c)); 5) his use of a false and misleading letterhead (SCR 20:7.5(b)); and 6) his failure to timely, fully and fairly respond to BAPR's investigative inquiries (SCR 21.03(4) and 22.07(2) and (3)).

Stuligross has no prior discipline, but he was denied a certificate of good moral character by the dean of the law school from which he graduated, based upon a two-year dismissal from the school. The dismissal stemmed from his having falsified a date stamp on a discovery motion that was prepared during a law school internship and from his making misrepresentations to the law school committee that investigated that matter.

The unauthorized practice of law count stemmed from Stuligross's abuse of pro hac vice admission privileges in Illinois while he was seeking a law license in that state. Between May 1992 and at least June 1993 Stuligross represented 47 clients in marital dissolution proceedings in Illinois circuit courts. In addition, he appeared in eight other proceedings without any such judicial authorization. When filing pleadings in those cases, he used the attorney identification number of an Illinois attorney with whom he shared office space, without making it clear to the court that the number was not his own. In addition, Stuligross used a letterhead listing a Chicago office address, without adding a disclaimer indicating that he was not licensed in Illinois.

The court concluded that, since at least his law school days, Stuligross had "established a pattern of serious misrepresentations to courts and others, something that cannot be tolerated in a person this court licenses to represent others in our legal system."

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 Room 102, 611 N. Broadway, Milwaukee, WI 53202.