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.

Wisconsin Lawyer