Vol. 73, No. 2, February 2000

Lawyer 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 342 N. Water St., 3rd Floor, Milwaukee, WI 53202.

Disciplinary Proceeding Against John W. Gibson

On Nov. 5, 1999, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered a six-month suspension of the law license of John W. Gibson, 67, Madison, effective Dec. 10, 1999.

Gibson represented a married couple on a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. A mortgage lender had neglected to record its mortgage on the couple's home prior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition. The lender moved for relief from the automatic bankruptcy stay so as to permit the post-petition recording of the mortgage. In violation of SCR 20:1.1, which requires a lawyer to provide competent representation to a client, Gibson failed to object to the motion, thereby forfeiting his clients' ability to retain equity in their home, and permitting the unsecured mortgagee to become a secured creditor. In violation of SCR 20:1.4(a), Gibson also failed to communicate adequately with the clients about their opportunity to oppose the motion and use the mortgagee's mistake to their advantage.

Gibson's law license previously was suspended for 90 days in 1985, and for 60 days in 1997.

Disciplinary Proceeding Against Nicholas C. Grapsas

On Dec. 3, 1999, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered a six-month suspension of the law license of Nicholas C. Grapsas, 61, Madison, effective Jan. 10, 2000.

A foreign national hired Grapsas in October 1994 to represent her on an application for permanent residency in the United States. The client taught French at a private secondary school in Indiana. When she retained Grapsas, or shortly thereafter, the client informed Grapsas that she had three minor children, one of whom, a daughter, was not a United States citizen, having been born outside this country and admitted to the U.S. on dependent status.

On May 16, 1995, Grapsas filed a petition with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to extend the client's nonimmigrant status. By July 1995, the client had provided Grapsas with all of the information necessary for him to complete the Application for Alien Employment Certification, the first of four steps in applying for permanent residency. Grapsas did not file the application until February 1997, in violation of SCR 20:1.3. Between November 1995 and February 1997, Grapsas had misrepresented to the client on numerous occasions that he had filed the application on her behalf, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).

Before Grapsas filed the Application for Alien Employment Certification, he altered the dates on it to make it appear that the client and employer had signed the application in November 1996 rather than a year earlier, as they had in fact done. In altering the application, Grapsas violated SCR 20:8.4(c). Prior to filing the application, Grapsas did not inform the client of the true status of the application, nor did he respond promptly to certain of her requests for information concerning it, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a).

When Grapsas filed the client's petition to extend nonimmigrant status in May 1995, he failed to inform the client that her daughter's dependent status would not be extended automatically upon the extension of the client's nonimmigrant status. He also failed to explain to the client the procedure to be followed to keep her daughter in dependent status. By failing to explain to his client important aspects of her situation, Grapsas violated SCR 20:1.4(b). In 1996 the client discovered that her daughter's status had expired. The client contacted Grapsas, who then told her they would need to file an extension application with INS. Grapsas filed such an application on or about March 10, 1997. The INS denied the daughter's application on May 1, 1997, and sent notice of the denial to Grapsas to forward to the client's daughter. In violation of SCR 20:1.4(a), Grapsas did not inform the client or the daughter that the application had been denied until June 3, 1997, when the client contacted him.

After the client terminated his representation, Grapsas agreed to return the $1,000 retainer paid by the client. Grapsas repaid $200, but made no further payments after the client filed a grievance with the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (BAPR). By failing to return the remainder of the unearned retainer, Grapsas violated SCR 20:1.16(d).

Grapsas failed to timely file a written response to the client's grievance, contrary to SCR 22.07(2) and (3).

Grapsas was publicly reprimanded by the supreme court in 1993, and again in March 1999, for misconduct in representing clients in immigration matters.

In addition to ordering a six-month license suspension, the court ordered Grapsas to refund in full the retainer paid by the client.

Disciplinary Proceeding Against Clay E. Konnor

On Dec. 3, 1999, the Wisconsin Supreme Court revoked the law license of Clay E. Konnor, 36, Milwaukee, effective June 16, 1999. In addition, the court ordered Konnor to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings. The revocation, which follows a June 16, 1999, temporary suspension, is based upon Konnor's criminal convictions.

On June 3, 1998, Konnor pleaded no-contest to one count of misdemeanor theft, one count of felony burglary, and seven counts of misdemeanor practicing law without a license in Milwaukee County Circuit Court, Branch 42. The misdemeanor theft charge originally was issued as one count of felony forgery, but was amended to misdemeanor theft pursuant to a plea agreement. On July 24, 1998, Konnor was sentenced on all of these charges, with an additional eight uncharged counts of practicing law without a license being read in to the record for sentencing. Konnor was sentenced to serve 30 days in jail and placed on probation for five years.

As a basis for the theft charge, in 1993 Konnor had forged the endorsement of a city treasurer's office on an escrow check and deposited the check in his own checking account. As a basis for the burglary charge, in 1997 Konnor had broken into the home of an acquaintance and removed various pieces of musical equipment. The acquaintance caught Konnor in the act and all stolen items were recovered. As a basis for the charges of practicing law without a license, in 1997 Konnor had been suspended for failure to pay dues and comply with continuing legal education requirements, but continued to practice law during this period. Konnor also was in possession of several oil paintings stolen from a club in Chicago in 1997; however, no charges were issued after Konnor returned the paintings when questioned by police.

By his actions, the court found that Konnor committed criminal acts that reflected adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(b); that Konnor engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c); and that Konnor engaged in the practice of law where doing so violated the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction, in violation of SCR 20:5.5(a).

Disciplinary Proceeding Against David J. Moskal

The Wisconsin Supreme Court revoked the law license of David J. Moskal, 44, of Minnesota, effective Dec. 15, 1999, as discipline reciprocal to Moskal's disbarment by the Minnesota Supreme Court in 1998 and in response to Moskal's subsequent federal felony convictions as to three counts of knowingly and intentionally devising and executing a scheme to defraud others through the United States mail.

Moskal filed a voluntary petition for revocation, in which he acknowledged that he could not successfully defend himself against BAPR's allegations concerning his misappropriation and conversion of more than $2.4 million in funds belonging to his clients and to the law firm with which he practiced. His misconduct included a failure to uphold the obligations of a lawyer to safeguard clients' property held in trust, in violation of SCR 20:1.15; the making of false statements of fact to third persons in the course of representing clients, in violation of SCR 20:4.1; and dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c). Further, as evidenced by his pleas of guilty and subsequent convictions to serious crimes, Moskal committed criminal acts that reflect adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(b). Finally, by not notifying BAPR of his Minnesota disbarment, Moskal violated SCR 22.25(1).

Moskal, who is presently incarcerated, had no prior discipline.

Disciplinary Proceeding Against Daniel J. Raymonds

The Wisconsin Supreme Court imposed a temporary suspension of the law license of Daniel Raymonds, 43, Milwaukee, commencing Aug. 9, 1999, based upon Raymonds' failure to provide an audit of his trust account to BAPR as of Aug. 2, 1999, after being ordered to do so in the fall of 1997. The audit was ordered by the referee before whom a disciplinary proceeding against Raymonds currently is pending.

On Dec. 17, 1999, the court lifted the suspension, effective that date, pursuant to an agreement between Raymonds and BAPR, Raymonds' representation that he has taken action to ensure his compliance with rules governing client trust accounts, and the recommendation of the referee that the temporary suspension be lifted.