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.

Public Reprimand of Jeffrey T. Roethe

Jeffrey T. Roethe, 55, Edgerton, has consented to a public reprimand by the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (BAPR). Roethe, the Edgerton city attorney, had represented a developer in purchasing and rezoning land north of Edgerton. In 1995, on behalf of the city, Roethe met with the developer and drafted an offer for the city to purchase 100 acres of land from the developer for $3,000 per acre. The developer did not own the land, but Roethe says he was informed the developer was "the sole and exclusive agent to negotiate for the sale of property." In fact, the developer had, at most, a verbal option to purchase the property from a farmer, who was another client of Roethe's, for $1,000 per acre.

Before the city council considered the developer's offer, Roethe prepared an offer to purchase between the developer and farmer that formalized their verbal agreement and provided that the farmer would sell 179 acres to the developer (including the 100 acres offered to the city) for approximately $1,000 per acre. Roethe made no written disclosure to the city about an actual or potential conflict of interest.

Six days later, Roethe attended a closed meeting of the Edgerton city council to consider the developer's offer to sell the land. Roethe advised the council that $3,000 per acre was the developer's "bottom line offer." Roethe did not disclose that he represented the developer in acquiring the land or the farmer in selling the land. The city accepted the offer.

Eleven days later, Roethe represented both the developer and the farmer at their closing. The developer and farmer executed a written waiver of conflict form that made no reference to the developer's sale to the city. No consent was obtained from the city.

A grievance was filed with BAPR, and Roethe's initial response disclosed that he represented the farmer as well as the city, but denied that he had represented the developer. In response to a second inquiry, Roethe disclosed prior representations of the developer, but failed to disclose that he represented the developer in the purchase from the farmer. Roethe declined to provide a closing statement he had prepared for the farmer, stating that he believed it to be confidential, and stated that, to his knowledge, no accepted Offer to Purchase between the farmer and developer existed. This statement was misleading, as Roethe had in a client file a signed Offer to Purchase that he, himself, had prepared.

In another follow-up letter, BAPR staff asked Roethe for further information, and Roethe's third response disclosed for the first time that Roethe had represented the developer in that transaction. Roethe later provided a copy of the closing statement he had earlier declined to provide and a copy of the purchase offer, the existence of which he had earlier denied knowledge. He also provided the written waiver of conflict form signed by the farmer and developer that he had not previously produced or described.

BAPR concluded that Roethe had a conflict of interest in representing the city, the developer, and the farmer in these related transactions, in violation of SCR 20:1.7(a) and (b). BAPR further found that Roethe failed to cooperate with its investigation, contrary to SCR 22.07(2).

Hearing to Reinstate Patrick Russell

A hearing on the petition of Patrick Russell, Milwaukee, for the reinstatement of his law license will be held before the District 2 Professional Responsibility Committee on April 25, 2000, at 6 p.m., at the Office of the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility, 342 N. Water St., Suite 300, Milwaukee, Wis.

Russell's license was suspended for 18 months by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, effective April 27, 1998. The suspension was based upon the following misconduct:

Over a period of several years, Russell schemed to take money to which he was not entitled from his law firm, in which he was a partner-shareholder and the treasurer. The scheme included his falsifying and having another employee falsify firm financial records. In 1995 Russell requested and received a $2,500 check from the firm's bookkeeper to purchase office equipment. Russell deposited the check into his personal account and spent the funds, but the money was listed on the firm's books as a miscellaneous office expense. Also in 1995 Russell signed a law firm check to himself, $1,000 of which he characterized as an advance. He did not obtain permission or preapproval, and the disbursement was accounted for as a miscellaneous office expense. In 1994 Russell obtained $1,687 from the law firm, which was debited as a miscellaneous office expense when the funds actually were used for home personal computer equipment. Later he obtained $2,000 from the firm for computer hardware; this money was listed as a "prepaid bonus," such that it was repaid to the firm at year-end. However, the disbursement was not preapproved and amounted to an unauthorized interest-free loan from the firm. From 1993 to 1995, Russell used his law firm's credit card for more than $3,300 in personal expenses, for which there was neither approval nor reimbursement, and also allowed the bookkeeper to charge two vacation trips on the card. He also purchased $677 in video equipment for personal use, had the bookkeeper pay the bill from the firm's account as an office expense, and did not reimburse the firm. Without the law firm's permission, he provided legal services and personally retained the $1,850 in fees that were generated. Lastly, he received $23,000 in tax-free reimbursements under a "flex" plan for childcare expenses that did not qualify under the plan and federal guidelines.

Russell is required by Supreme Court Rule 22.28 to establish by evidence that is clear and convincing, the following, that:

1. he desires to have his license reinstated;

2. he has not practiced law during the suspension;

3. he has complied with the terms of the suspension;

4. he has maintained competence and learning in 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 aid in the administration of justice as a member of the bar and an officer of the court;

8. he has made restitution or settled all claims from persons injured or harmed by his misconduct, or in the event such restitution is not complete, has explained the failure or inability to do so;

9. he has indicated the proposed use of the license after reinstatement; and

10. he has fully described all business activities during the suspension.

Any interested person may appear at the hearing and be heard in support of or in opposition to the petition for reinstatement. Further information may be obtained from Jeananne L. Danner, Deputy Administrator, Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility, 342 N. Water St., Suite 300, Milwaukee, WI 53202, (414) 227-4623.

Hearing to Reinstate Leslie J. Webster

A public hearing on the petition of Leslie J. Webster for reinstatement of his law license will be held before the District 5 Professional Responsibility Committee on Thursday, April 20, 2000, at 1 p.m. in the Branch 1 Circuit Court Room on the second floor of the La Crosse County Courthouse, 333 Vine St., La Crosse, Wis.

Webster became licensed to practice law in 1979 and practiced in Ellsworth. His law license was suspended for two years effective Jan. 21, 1998, Disciplinary Proceeding Against Webster, 217 Wis. 2d 371, 577 N.W.2d 21 (1998). Prior to his suspension, Webster had been publicly reprimanded by the court, Disciplinary Proceeding Against Webster, 154 Wis. 2d 110, 452 N.W.2d 374 (1990).

Webster was suspended based on his conviction in federal court on one count of aiding and abetting the fraudulent concealment of a debtor's property from a bankruptcy trustee, a felony. The Wisconsin Supreme Court determined that Webster had committed a criminal act that reflected adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness as a lawyer, contrary to SCR 20:8.4(b).

Webster has the burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that he has the moral character to practice law in this state and that his resumption of the practice of law will not be detrimental to the integrity and standing of the bar or the administration of justice or subversive of the public interest. Webster also must demonstrate that he has settled all claims from persons harmed by his misconduct.

Any interested person may appear at the hearing and be heard in support of or in opposition to the petition for reinstatement. Further information may be obtained from Elsa P. Greene, Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility, 110 E. Main St., Room 315, Madison, WI 53703-3383, (608) 267-7274.

Disciplinary Proceeding Against K. Richard Wells

The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law license of K. Richard Wells, 54, Kenosha, for 90 days, commencing Feb. 11, 2000. In addition, the court ordered that Wells, as a condition of reinstatement, obtain at his expense a psychological evaluation and follow any treatment plan that may be recommended as a result. The court also ordered that Wells make appropriate restitution and pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding.

The court, adopting the referee's findings of fact entered after Wells declined to participate in the disciplinary proceeding, found that Wells engaged in misconduct in five separate grievances. In each of the matters, the court found that Wells failed to cooperate with BAPR's investigation in violation of SCR 21.03(4) and 22.07(2) by failing to respond to letters from BAPR staff.

In the first matter, a man sought Wells' assistance in obtaining an occupational driver's license. Wells sent the client an authorization for release of the client's counseling records, which the client signed and returned to Wells. Wells then notarized his client's signature without having witnessed the signature, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c). Wells failed to respond to letters from BAPR staff when the client filed a grievance alleging neglect and failure to communicate. Wells gave no explanation for his failure to cooperate with BAPR's investigation.

In the second matter, Wells previously had received a private reprimand based on this client's grievance. The reprimand was conditioned on return of the client's file materials. The client complained several months later that he had not received the file, although Wells represented when accepting the reprimand that he had returned the file. Wells did not respond to BAPR staff's inquiries regarding the matter. The court found that Wells, thereby, failed to cooperate with BAPR's investigation.

In the third matter, a woman retained Wells for $3,000 to represent her minor son regarding potential criminal charges. Wells failed to respond to the woman's repeated phone calls for more than five months, inquiring as to the status of the matter. Wells failed to respond to three letters from BAPR staff. The court found that Wells failed to communicate with the client in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a), and failed to cooperate with BAPR's investigation. Wells refunded the $3,000 retainer.

In the fourth matter, a man retained Wells for $750 to represent him on OWI charges. Wells attended an initial hearing with the client but then failed to appear at the pretrial, resulting in the client's being found guilty. The client was unaware of the guilty finding until he received notice from the municipality several months later informing him that he owed a forfeiture of $719, and that his driver's license was suspended for nine months. Wells failed to return the client's calls seeking an explanation for the guilty finding. Wells failed to respond to two letters from BAPR staff. The court found that Wells failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness, in violation of SCR 20:1.3, failed to communicate with the client, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a), and had failed to cooperate with BAPR's investigation. Wells refunded the $750.

In the fifth matter, Wells failed to respond to two letters from BAPR staff seeking a response to a grievance. The court found that Wells, thereby, failed to cooperate with BAPR's investigation. In imposing the 90-day suspension, the court considered Wells' prior discipline, which included two private reprimands, one in 1997 and one in 1998, for substantially similar misconduct. The court also took into account Wells' repeated pattern of noncooperation, and his repeated violations of professional obligations in respect to direct dealings with clients.