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 Thomas D. Baehr

On Feb. 9, 2000, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law license of Thomas D. Baehr, 47, Stevens Point, for 90 days for professional misconduct, effective March 20, 2000.
Baehr was appointed in June 1997 to represent an incarcerated client on an appeal and on a claim of ineffective assistance of his previous counsel. The client was incarcerated following revocation of his probation. Baehr took no action in the client's case and did not communicate in any way with the client. Baehr failed to respond to two letters from the client requesting information about the status of the appeal, and Baehr failed to return two calls from the client's mother that were made at the client's request. Approximately 17 months after Baehr had been appointed, the client retained private counsel to represent him on appeal.

After the client filed a grievance, Baehr failed to respond to requests from the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (BAPR) staff and the district professional responsibility committee.

The court concluded that Baehr failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing the client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3. The court further concluded that Baehr's failure to communicate in any manner with the client violated SCR 20:1.4(a), which requires a lawyer to keep a client reasonably informed of the status of a matter and comply promptly with reasonable requests for information. The court determined that Baehr's failure to discuss or evaluate appellate issues with the client violated his duty under SCR 20:1.4(b) to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit a client to make informed decisions regarding the attorney's representation. Finally, the court found that Baehr's failure to respond to requests from BAPR and the district committee constituted a failure to cooperate with BAPR's investigation, in violation of SCR 21.03(4) and 22.07(2). Baehr had no previous discipline.

Disciplinary Proceeding against Richard C. Glesner

On Feb. 23, 2000, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered a 60-day suspension of the law license of Richard C. Glesner, 58, Madison, effective the date of the order. The court acted pursuant to a stipulation entered into by Glesner and BAPR.

On two occasions, Glesner added an unearned $1,500 to monthly billing statements sent to a client. The client did not immediately pay the second of the two periodic bills and requested an itemization of time entries. Glesner reviewed the time entries for the invoice and adjusted several of them upward in order to make it appear that the bill was justified by time spent on the matter. The time entries Glesner adjusted were not his own but those of other attorneys who had worked on the client's matter. Glesner and BAPR stipulated that his conduct involved dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c), and violated his fiduciary duty, established by case law, to the firm at which he was employed, as well as his duty of honesty in his professional dealings with his law firm.

Glesner was publicly reprimanded in 1993 for representing clients with conflicting interests and giving misleading deposition testimony intended to evade discovery of the conflict he had an affirmative duty to disclose.

Public Reprimand of David Merriam

David Merriam, 58, Madison, has been publicly reprimanded by BAPR for neglect of an estate and failure to cooperate with BAPR's investigation.

Merriam was retained to probate a simple estate in 1997. When the personal representative filed a grievance in 1998, Merriam had not done any work on the estate for more than a year and had not filed the estate inventory.

Merriam initially failed to respond to two requests for a written response to the grievance, but he eventually cooperated with a district committee investigation. In 1999, at the conclusion of the committee's investigation, Merriam had still taken no further steps to file the inventory or conclude probate.

Noting that Merriam had received two prior private reprimands for neglect, failure to communicate with clients, and noncooperation, BAPR voted to publicly reprimand Merriam on the condition that he conclude probate of the estate. Merriam concluded the probate and consented to the public reprimand.

Public Reprimand of Verlin H. Peckham

Verlin H. Peckham, 66, Portage, has been publicly reprimanded by the Wisconsin Supreme Court for entering into a loan transaction with a client, failing to pursue a small claims action, and failing to cooperate with the grievance investigation.

A client retained Peckham in a 1995 small claims action to recover interest on mortgage payments that had been refunded by virtue of mortgage insurance. At the pretrial conference, Peckham asked the client, who was also his friend and neighbor, for a $500 loan. The client agreed, and Peckham gave her a handwritten promissory note requiring repayment, with 12 percent interest, in 60 days. Peckham did not respond to contacts from the client thereafter.
The client appeared at trial, but Peckham did not, and the court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. Peckham learned of the dismissal shortly thereafter, but made no effort to contact the client or have the case reopened. Peckham failed to respond to requests for information from BAPR when the client filed a grievance. The loan the client gave Peckham is still outstanding.
The court concluded that Peckham entered into a business transaction with a client without appropriate disclosure and consent, contrary to SCR 20:1.8(a); failed to provide competent representation, contrary to SCR 20:1.1; failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness, contrary to SCR 20:1.3; failed to keep a client reasonably informed and to comply with reasonable requests for information, contrary to SCR 20:1.4(a); terminated the representation without protecting the client's interests, contrary to SCR 20:1.16(d); and failed to cooperate with BAPR's investigation, contrary to SCR 21.03(4) and 22.07(3).

Peckham had been reprimanded previously for similar misconduct in 1983. The court noted, however, that the client had been a long-time friend, that poor health had caused Peckham to retire from the practice of law in November 1998 and that Peckham does not intend to resume the practice of law. Peckham also was ordered to repay the client's loan, with interest, within 60 days of the court's order.