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 Kevin M. Jereczek

On May 20, 1998, the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted the petition of Kevin M. Jereczek for revocation of his law license by consent. Jereczek, 35, Green Bay, filed the petition in the course of a disciplinary action filed by the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (BAPR). In the petition, Jereczek stated that he could not defend against the allegations of misconduct contained in BAPR's complaint. Jereczek has been ineligible to practice law since May 27, 1996, the starting date of a 60-day suspension from which Jereczek never obtained reinstatement because he failed to file the affidavit of compliance required under the terms and conditions of the suspension. Jereczek also was publicly reprimanded in 1996.

The proceeding leading to Jereczek's revocation stemmed from three grievance matters. In the first, Jereczek remained attorney of record in a federal court case after his May 27, 1996 suspension, and, in violation of SCR 22.26(1)(b), failed to provide notice of his license suspension to the court. In violation of SCR 21.03(4) and 2.07(2), which require attorneys to cooperate with BAPR investigations, Jereczek submitted nothing in response to notices requiring him to address the allegations of misconduct.

In the second matter, Jereczek agreed to provide post-conviction representation to a criminal defendant who already had representation through the State Public Defender's office. Jereczek's representation was arranged through the client's sister. In violation of SCR 20:1.3, Jereczek did nothing to advance the client's interests. In violation of SCR 20:8.4(c), Jereczek made misrepresentations to the sister, a friend of the sister, and other members of the client's family as to work purportedly done. In violation of SCR 22.26(1)(a), Jereczek failed to inform the client of his May 27, 1996 license suspension, which commenced during the period of representation. Jereczek failed to return any portion of the retainer paid by the sister, violating SCR 20:1.16(d). In violation of SCR 21.03(4) and 22.07, Jereczek did not cooperate with the grievance investigation.

In the third matter, prior to the May 27, 1996 suspension of his law license, Jereczek failed to advance his clients' interests in a bankruptcy, violating SCR 20:1.3. Jereczek failed to inform the clients of his license suspension, in violation of SCR 22.26(1)(a). Subsequent to his license suspension, Jereczek appeared on behalf of one of the clients in a small claims case, violating SCR 22.26(2), and failed to inform the court of his suspension, in violation of SCR 22.26(1)(b). In further violation of SCR 22.26(2), Jereczek prepared certain bankruptcy forms for the clients subsequent to his license suspension. In violation of SCR 20:1.16(d), Jereczek failed to return the $650 retainer provided by the clients, issuing them a check in that amount that never cleared because of insufficient funds in his office account. Jereczek did not cooperate with the grievance investigation, in violation of SCR 21.03(4) and 22.07.

Hearing to reinstate Anthony M. Marick

On March 16, 1998, Anthony M. Marick filed a petition with the Wisconsin Supreme Court seeking the reinstatement of his law license pursuant to SCR 21.11 and 22.28.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered Marick's law license suspended for nine months, effective Oct. 2, 1996. The court based its order upon review of the record and a stipulation between Marick and BAPR.

Marick and BAPR stipulated that the director of the Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility had alleged Marick:

• used a client confidence or secret for his or a third person's advantage, contrary to Minnesota Rule of Professional Responsibility 1.6(a)(3), which is equivalent to Wisconsin SCR 20:1.6(a);
  
  
• engaged in conduct that constituted a criminal act that reflected adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, contrary to Minnesota Rule of Professional Responsibility 8.4(b), which is equivalent to Wisconsin SCR 20:8.4(b); and
  
  
• engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, contrary to Minnesota Rule of Professional Responsibility 8.4(c), which is equivalent to Wisconsin SCR 20:8.4(c).

Marick and BAPR also stipulated that these allegations were based upon Marick's use of confidential client information for his personal profit.

Marick and BAPR agreed that the Minnesota Supreme Court had suspended Marick's law license for nine months. They also agreed that Marick admitted the aforementioned allegations in a stipulation between him and the director of the Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility.

Marick and BAPR agreed that a nine-month suspension of his Wisconsin law license would be appropriate reciprocal discipline.

Marick is required by SCR 22.28 to show that:

1. nine months have elapsed since the denial of his previous petition;
   
   
2. he has not practiced law since Nov. 1, 1989;
   
   
3. he has fully complied with the terms of the revocation order;
   
   
4. he has maintained competence and learning in the law;
   
   
5. his conduct since the discipline has been exemplary and above reproach;
   
   
6. 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;
   
   
7. 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 court;
   
   
8. he has fully complied with the requirements of SCR 22.26;
   
   
9. he indicates the proposed use of his law license if reinstated;
   
   
10. he has fully described all business activities during the revocation;
    
    
11. he has made restitution or settled all claims from persons injured or harmed by his misconduct or, if the restitution is not complete, has explained the failure or inability to do so.

A public hearing on the petition will be held at 7 p.m. on Thursday, Sept. 24, 1998, at 110 E. Main St., Fourth Floor Conference Room, Madison, Wis. Persons wishing to give testimony or evidence in support of or in opposition to the petition should contact Peter Sammataro, Investigator, Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility, 110 E. Main St., Suite 315, Madison, WI 53730-3383, (608) 267-7274, by Sept. 5, 1998.

Persons who require special accommodations to participate at the hearing also should contact Peter Sammataro.