Professional Discipline

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.

Disciplinary proceeding
against James F. Blask

On Feb. 24, 1998, the Wisconsin Supreme Court publicly reprimanded James F. Blask, 54, Milwaukee, for misconduct. During the period in which the misconduct occurred, Blask was serving as district attorney for Lincoln County. Blask was removed from that office in August 1996 for misconduct in connection with two altercations.

In February 1996, following a high school basketball game in Merrill, Blask complained to a referee about the officiating and then pushed the referee into a wall near a locker room. A criminal complaint was filed against Blask alleging one count of disorderly conduct, one count of obstruction of an officer, and one count of disorderly conduct in connection with an unrelated incident that had occurred two days earlier. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Blask was convicted of the misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge in connection with the referee incident, and the remaining charges were dismissed but read in at sentencing.

In the earlier incident, a 67-year-old man was leaving the office of the Lincoln County register in probate when the man engaged in a loud confrontation with Blask, who placed his hands on the man, attempted to search him, and pushed him backwards with a fist into the man's chest, thereby bending the frames of eyeglasses that were in the man's pocket.

The supreme court found that Blask engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c), by providing false information to the investigating officer in the referee incident. The court also found that by his physical altercations, Blask engaged in offensive personality, in violation of the Attorney's Oath, SCR 40.15, and SCR 20:8.4(g); and violated SCR 22.07(2) and (3), and SCR 21.03(4), by failing to respond to two letters from the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (BAPR) requesting information during its investigation.

Blask has no prior discipline.

Disciplinary proceeding
against Sara Lee Johann

By order dated Feb. 24, 1998, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law license of Sara Lee Johann, 41, Cedarburg, for six months, effective April 7, 1998. The suspension is based upon Johann's conduct in three separate matters.

In a paternity proceeding in which Johann was a party, Johann made statements about two circuit court judges (for example, that they had engaged in "illegal and malicious destruction of [her] life" and had made "hate-based" decisions against her) with reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of her comments, contrary to SCR 20:8.2(a). In conjunction with the paternity proceeding, Johann distributed a printed handout strongly critical of her child's father and his wife. The handout urged a boycott of the wife's law firm. Johann distributed the handout, in part, to reduce the wife's income and thereby limit the resources available to her child's father to proceed with the paternity action. Johann's conduct regarding the handout constituted the exercise of offensive personality, contrary to the Attorney's Oath, SCR 40.15, and, therefore, contrary to SCR 20:8.4(g).

In a defamation action brought by the wife of the child's father, Johann failed to make a reasonably diligent effort to comply with a proper discovery request, contrary to SCR 20:3.4(d). Johann also failed to comply with three notices to appear for deposition and produce previously subpoenaed documents, and failed to cooperate with the court-appointed referee in discovery, which constituted knowing disobedience of an obligation under SCR 20:3.4(c). When opposing counsel in the defamation action did not respond to a settlement offer by Johann, Johann contacted the district attorney and asserted that the wife's defamation action constituted criminal fraud. In doing so, Johann threatened to present criminal charges solely to gain an advantage in a civil matter, contrary to SCR 20:3.10. Johann also failed to cooperate with the investigation of her conduct during the defamation action, contrary to SCR 21.03(4) and SCR 22.07(2).

In an unrelated matter, Johann represented on appeal a person who had been committed involuntarily and later was ordered to be medicated involuntarily. On March 12, 1996, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal in part because of what it termed "egregious" violations of the appellate rules by Johann. Johann's conduct in the appeal demonstrated a lack of legal knowledge, skill, and thoroughness in preparation reasonably necessary for the representation of the client, contrary to SCR 20:1.1. By filing a brief exceeding the page limits after unsuccessfully requesting an extension of those limits, Johann also knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the rules of the appellate court, in violation of SCR 20:3.4(c).

Johann has no prior discipline.

Public reprimand
of Leroy Jones

On Feb. 17, 1998, BAPR publicly reprimanded Leroy Jones, 69, Milwaukee, for his misconduct while representing a man in a child support matter. Jones failed to appear for a contempt hearing in the matter. As a result, the client was found in contempt and ordered to pay the petitioner's attorney fees. After the hearing, when the client's wife contacted Jones for an explanation as to why the client had been ordered to pay attorney fees to the petitioner, Jones failed to accurately inform her regarding the status of the matter, by saying that no fees had been awarded. In response to the grievance, Jones misrepresented to BAPR that he was not retained for the hearing and did not know about the hearing. BAPR found that Jones's conduct constituted neglect of a client's legal matter, in violation of SCR 20:1.3; failure to accurately inform the client regarding the status of the matter, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a); and misrepresentation to BAPR in connection with a disciplinary matter, in violation of SCR 20:8.1(a).

The client also discussed with Jones the expungement of an arrearage in a second child support matter involving another son. In the second matter, Jones did not believe that he had been formally retained to handle the case, but Jones failed to explain that belief to the client after it should have been clear to him that the client and his wife believed that Jones was working on their behalf. BAPR also found that Jones's conduct in the second matter constituted failure to explain a matter to the extent necessary to enable the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(b).

BAPR considered Jones's prior discipline in imposing the sanction in this case. Jones has three prior public reprimands, and three prior 60-day suspensions.

Disciplinary proceeding against
Alejandro R. Palabrica II

The Wisconsin Supreme Court revoked the law license of Alejandro R. Palabrica II, 36, Milwaukee, commencing Feb. 24, 1998. The revocation is based upon Palabrica's conversion of a personal injury client's settlement (SCR 20:8.4(c)); his failure to respond to numerous inquiries from the client regarding that settlement (SCR 20:1.4(a)); his neglect of two probate matters (SCR 20:1.3); his failure to respond to inquiries from the personal representative of one of those estates (SCR 20:1.4(a)); and his failure to cooperate with BAPR's investigation of these matters (SCR 22.07(2) and SCR 21.03(4)). The court also ordered that Palabrica pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding, and that he make restitution to the personal injury client before being reinstated, as required by SCR 22.28(4)(k).

Palabrica was retained to represent a child regarding a dog bite. After settling the case for $24,000, he deposited the proceeds into his trust account. He then converted more than $15,500 to his own purposes, over and above the $8,000 fee to which he was entitled. Palabrica used $5,750 of the converted funds toward repaying a personal obligation stemming from his purchase of a restaurant. After Palabrica defaulted on a promissory note relating to that transaction, the sellers commenced a lawsuit against him. To settle the lawsuit, Palabrica agreed to pay the sellers $7,750. The bulk of that amount came from funds belonging to the child, his client.

In two additional matters, Palabrica failed to exercise reasonable diligence in concluding estates. While serving as the personal representative in one estate, he failed to conclude the probate for approximately 28 months and ultimately was removed by the court. In the second estate, Palabrica failed to respond to inquiries from an heir and failed to complete the probate for 23 months.

Disciplinary proceeding
against Terrence J. Woods

By order dated Feb. 24, 1998, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law license of Terrence J. Woods, 56, Oconto Falls, for 60 days, effective April 7, 1998. Woods' misconduct involved three matters.

First, Woods accepted representation of a client on a claim that the client had been mistreated while in jail. Woods received a $300 fee, filed a notice of claim, which was denied, and had one contact with the client. Woods thereafter did nothing further on the case, nor did he respond to the client's requests for information or return the client's file and fee payment, as requested. Woods failed to keep the client reasonably informed of the status of his matter and failed to comply promptly with reasonable requests for information, contrary to SCR 20:1.4(a). Woods also failed to surrender property to which the client was entitled, contrary to SCR 20:1.16(d).

Second, Woods was retained to appeal a criminal conviction. Woods failed to file the appellant's brief, despite two delinquency notices from the court of appeals. In so doing, Woods failed to act with reasonable diligence, contrary to SCR 20:1.3. During the investigation of this matter, Woods initially failed to cooperate with BAPR, contrary to SCR 21.03(4) and SCR 22.07(3). Woods also made a misrepresentation in a disclosure to BAPR, contrary to SCR 22.07(2).

Third, Woods represented a client who had a dispute with an automobile dealership concerning a used car. Woods wrote one letter to the dealership stating the client's position that the car had a diminished value by virtue of having been in an accident that had not been disclosed. The dealer denied any liability. Thereafter Woods took no further action on the case, nor did he respond to several inquiries from the client about the status of the matter. Woods failed to act with reasonable diligence in representing the client, contrary to SCR 20:1.3, and did not promptly comply with the client's reasonable requests for information, contrary to SCR 20:1.4(a). In addition, Woods did not cooperate with BAPR's investigation, contrary to SCR 22.07(2).

Woods previously received a public reprimand in 1993 and a private reprimand in 1996.