Sign In
    Wisconsin Lawyer
    May 01, 2000

    Wisconsin Lawyer May 2000: Lawyer Discipline

    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.


Join the conversation! Log in to comment.

News & Pubs Search

-
Format: MM/DD/YYYY