Vol. 73, No. 5, May
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.
Private
Reprimand Summaries
Public Reprimand of John D. Hanson
John D. Hanson, 60, Madison, has been publicly reprimanded by the
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (BAPR). Hanson
represented a woman who was divorced in 1985. The ex-husband had sole
custody and primary placement of the parties' two minor children.
Hanson's client was allowed reasonable visitation and was ordered to pay
child support of $130 per month.
On Oct. 11, 1989, Hanson filed a motion seeking joint legal custody
and primary placement of both children with his client. Roughly one year
later, a mediated agreement was reached, calling for joint legal
custody, with primary placement of the parties' daughter going to
Hanson's client and primary placement of the son going to the
ex-husband. It was further agreed that the client's child support
arrears came to $410, and that her support obligation would cease with
the change in placement. Hanson was to draft a stipulation and order,
without which the client's support obligation would continue.
It was not until January 1995 that Hanson drafted a stipulation and
order reflecting the terms of the agreement struck in 1990. By then, the
ex-husband was no longer willing to stipulate, because he learned of
Hanson's client's intention to seek placement of the parties' son.
Subsequent to October 1989, the client received monthly arrearage
notices, which Hanson advised her to ignore. Hanson reasoned that while
the original support terms had not been modified, the principle of
equitable estoppel would cause a forgiveness of the arrears as of the
time the minor daughter moved in with the client. As the client's
concern heightened, she tried many times to reach Hanson, without
success. On May 15, 1995, unaware that her original child support
obligation had never been modified, the client wrote to Hanson and asked
for a copy of the "order to stop child support."
At a July 11, 1997, hearing on the county child support agency's
contempt motion, Hanson's client was found in contempt, and her support
arrearage was set at $12,222. Through successor counsel, the client's
arrearage was negotiated down to $9,262.50.
BAPR concluded that Hanson violated SCR
20:1.3 by failing to promptly draft the stipulation and order that
would have capped the client's support arrears at $410 and terminated
her support obligation. BAPR further concluded that Hanson violated SCR
20:1.4(a) by failing to respond to client inquiries or otherwise
provide reliable information as to the status of the matter.
Hanson was privately reprimanded by BAPR in 1982.
Wisconsin Lawyer
