Lawyer Discipline
The Office of Lawyer
Regulation (formerly known as the Board of Attorneys Professional
Responsibility), an agency of the Wisconsin Supreme Court and component
of the lawyer regulation system, assists the court in carrying out its
constitutional responsibility to supervise the practice of law and
protect the public from misconduct by persons practicing law in
Wisconsin. The Office of Lawyer Regulation has offices located at Suite
315, 110 E. Main St., Madison, WI 53703, and Suite 300, 342 N. Water
St., Milwaukee, WI 53202. Toll-free telephone: (877) 315-6941.
Disciplinary Proceeding Against John
V. Asher
On Feb. 27, 2001, and effective that same date, the Wisconsin Supreme
Court revoked the law license of John V. Asher, 48, formerly officed in
Brookfield and Wauwatosa. In 1984 John Asher incorporated a law firm
that he named the Christian Law Center (CLC). This was solely Asher's
firm, although he may have employed one or more associates at various
times. The CLC advertised extensively and handled a high volume of
relatively low-asset personal bankruptcies. He also was the minister of
a church he had founded, and he operated other business enterprises.
During the late summer of 1999, it was widely reported in the media
that Asher had extremely serious problems, both financially and
regarding appropriate legal representation of his clients. After twice
relocating his offices, he notified his clients by letter dated Aug. 27,
1999, that he was forced to close the CLC due to financial problems. Up
to that time, however, he continued to accept retainers and filing fees
from clients for work to be performed, but which was not done. From that
time on, until mid-2000, numerous clients filed grievances alleging that
they had paid funds to Asher for retainers and bankruptcy filing fees
for actions that Asher never filed.
The Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (BAPR, now the
Office of Lawyer Regulation, OLR) complaint alleged 233 violations of
the rules of professional conduct relating to 58 clients. Of these, BAPR
alleged 51 counts of simultaneous violations of SCR 20:1.15(a), failure
to hold clients' funds in trust, and SCR 20:8.4(c), engaging in conduct
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. Although
Asher had an IOLTA trust account and a "Filing Fee Account," Asher did
not routinely deposit filing fees in these accounts, and the accounts
appeared to be unused or used for other purposes. On Aug. 27, 1999,
Asher acknowledged he had no funds held in trust. At that time, Asher
should have had on deposit the filing fees of 51 clients, totaling
$8,900, which amount he had converted to his own use.
BAPR also alleged 53 violations of SCR 20:1.16(d), failure to return
unearned fees to clients. The 53 clients had paid retainers in full to
Asher to file bankruptcy actions, which Asher had not filed when he
closed his office. Although Asher may have spent some time with the
clients or had partially completed documents, the clients received no
value for their retainers. The court found that Asher had failed to
return a total of $33,811.50 in unearned fees to the 53 clients.
The court also found 18 violations of SCR 20:1.3, failing to act with
reasonable diligence and promptness, in representations where the client
had paid in full for actions that were not filed within a reasonable
amount of time. The court found three violations of SCR 20:1.4(a) in
instances where Asher's staff repeatedly put off clients calling for
information or simply made no response whatsoever. In addition, the
court found one violation of SCR 20:1.16(a)(3), where Asher filed a
bankruptcy action after the client had discharged him.
The court found 56 violations of SCR 22.07(3) based on Asher's
failure to cooperate with 56 grievance investigations. Asher cooperated
with only one investigation, and, in the others, he either failed to
respond to BAPR's inquiries at all or the inquiries were returned marked
"Refused - Return to Sender."
The court ordered restitution to the clients in the above-named
amounts, with interest, and ordered that Asher pay the costs of the
disciplinary proceedings. Asher had no previous disciplinary
history.
Suspension of Thomas D.
Baehr
On Dec. 7, 2000, pursuant to SCR 22.03(4) (effective Oct. 1, 2000),
the OLR filed a motion to suspend the law license of Thomas D. Baehr for
his willful failure to respond to requests for a written response or
cooperate in other respects with three pending OLR grievance
investigations concerning his conduct. On Dec. 22, 2000, the Wisconsin
Supreme Court issued an order requiring Baehr to show cause in writing
by Jan. 11, 2001, why OLR's motion should not be granted; Baehr filed no
response.
On Feb. 22, 2001, the court issued an order granting OLR's motion and
temporarily suspended Baehr's license effective on the date of the order
and until further notice of the court. The court also ordered that Baehr
comply with the requirements of SCR 22.26 relating to license suspension
if he had not already done so.
The court had earlier suspended Baehr's license for 90 days,
commencing March 20, 2000, for professional misconduct. Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Baehr, 2000 WI 8, 232 Wis. 2d 606, 605 N.W. 2d 523.
Baehr's license has remained suspended because he has not paid the costs
assessed in that proceeding, nor has he filed an affidavit with OLR
showing full compliance with the terms and conditions of the order of
suspension.
Temporary Suspension of Perry P.
Lieuallen
On Feb. 22, 2001, the Wisconsin Supreme Court temporarily suspended
the law license of Perry P. Lieuallen, 53, Port Washington, until
further notice of the court, commencing the date of the order. The OLR
moved for the suspension pending the outcome of disciplinary proceedings
against Lieuallen. OLR filed a disciplinary complaint on Nov. 17, 2000,
alleging numerous trust account violations, including conversion of
funds from trust, in violation of SCR 20:1.15(a) and SCR 20:8.4(c).
Lieuallen failed to respond to the court's order that he show cause, in
writing, by Jan. 23, 2001, why OLR's motion should not be granted.
Temporary Suspension of Matthew O.
Olaiya
On Dec. 7, 2000, the OLR filed a disciplinary complaint with the
Wisconsin Supreme Court alleging misconduct by Matthew O. Olaiya, 43,
who formerly practiced law in Madison. Pursuant to SCR 22.21, OLR also
filed a motion seeking a temporary suspension of Olaiya's law license on
the basis that Olaiya's continued practice of law during the pendency of
the disciplinary complaint posed a threat to the interests of the public
and the administration of justice. OLR's affidavit alleged that Olaiya,
whose last known address was in Lagos Island, Nigeria, failed to
adequately protect clients' interests when he left the country,
neglected client matters, failed to communicate with clients, and
engaged in other professional misconduct as alleged in the pending
disciplinary complaint.
The court ordered Olaiya to show cause why OLR's motion for temporary
suspension should not be granted. Olaiya did not respond to the order to
show cause, and on Feb. 22, 2001, the Wisconsin Supreme Court
temporarily suspended Olaiya's law license and ordered him to comply
with the requirements of SCR 22.26 if he had not already done so.
Petition to Reinstate David V.
Penn
A hearing on the petition of David V. Penn for the reinstatement of
his law license will be held before Referee John Schweitzer on
Wednesday, May 30, 2001, at 9 a.m. in the small courtroom of the Vilas
County Courthouse, 330 Court St., Eagle River, Wis.
Penn's license was suspended for two years by the Wisconsin Supreme
Court, effective June 4, 1996. The suspension was based upon the
following misconduct:
While acting as Vilas County District Attorney, Penn was involved in
referral and prosecution in criminal proceedings of nine persons who
previously had used an illegal drug with Penn or had personal knowledge
of his illegal drug use. Penn thereby represented his client, the state,
when that representation might have been or was materially limited by
his own interests, contrary to SCR 20:1.7(b).
In January 1993, Penn pled guilty to five counts of possession of
marijuana containing THC and entered an Alford plea to one count of
cocaine possession. Penn was found guilty and convicted of six
misdemeanors.
In February 1994, after he had left office as district attorney,
Penn's blood and urine samples taken following a traffic stop disclosed
the presence of cocaine metabolite and marijuana metabolite. Penn was
charged with having possessed cocaine and entered into a deferred
prosecution agreement.
Based on the marijuana and cocaine possession convictions and upon
the subsequent charge resulting in a deferred prosecution agreement, the
court concluded that Penn committed criminal acts reflecting adversely
on his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other
respects, contrary to SCR 20:8.4(b).
In February 1990, while at a tavern, Penn discussed a pending felony
drug case with the defendant, out of the presence and without the
consent of the defendant's attorney, contrary to SCR 20:4.2.
Penn is required by Supreme Court Rule 22.29 to establish by clear
and convincing evidence, that:
1) he desires to have his license reinstated;
2) he has not practiced law during the suspension;
3) he has complied fully with the terms of the suspension and will
continue to comply with them until his license is reinstated;
4) he has maintained competence and learning in the law;
5) his conduct since the suspension 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 to aid in the administration of justice as a member of the
bar and as an officer of the courts;
8) he has fully complied with the requirements set forth in SCR
22.26;
9) he has indicated the proposed use of his license after
reinstatement;
10) he has fully described all business activities during his
suspension; and
11) he has made restitution or settled all claims from persons
injured or harmed by his misconduct or, if not, has explained the
failure or inability to do so.
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 Melody Rader-Johnson at the Office of
Lawyer Regulation (OLR), 110 E. Main St., #315, Madison, WI 53703, (877)
315-6941, or from OLR's retained counsel in this matter, Attorney
Matthew F. Anich, 220 Sixth Ave. West, P.O. Box 677, Ashland, WI
54806-0677, (715) 682-9114.
Suspension of M. Joanne
Wolf
Based on a comprehensive stipulation between M. Joanne Wolf, 52,
Prairie du Chien, and the OLR, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended
Wolf's law license for two years, effective Feb. 6, 2001. Wolf and OLR
stipulated that in July 1997 Wolf was retained to represent a client in
a divorce. Wolf's law license had been suspended for nonpayment of State
Bar dues, effective Nov. 2, 1992, and has remained under suspension
since that date.
Wolf's client wished to remarry in mid-May 1998. Wolf informed the
client that she could not remarry until six months after the effective
date of the divorce, and thus, the divorce would need to be final by
mid-November 1997. Although Wolf subsequently informed the client that a
final hearing in the divorce had been scheduled for November 1997, Wolf
did not, in fact, file the divorce petition until March 1998. Wolf told
her client that the hearing on the divorce had been postponed and that
Wolf would ask the judge to waive the six-month requirement.
On April 29, 1998, the circuit court granted a divorce to Wolf's
client and reminded her that she could not remarry until six months
after the date of the divorce. Wolf told the client that she would
arrange to have the judge backdate the judgment of divorce. Wolf
subsequently provided her client with a purported copy of the client's
divorce judgment that showed the client's divorce had been granted on
Oct. 29, 1997. Wolf told the client that after she had used the judgment
to obtain her marriage license, she should destroy the judgment.
The county clerk refused to issue a marriage license to Wolf's client
because the date of divorce shown in the copy of the divorce judgment
that the client presented did not coincide with the date shown in the
judgment on file with the clerk of court's office. Wolf thereafter went
to the county clerk's office, represented that the divorce had been
granted on Oct. 29, 1997, obtained the marriage license, and delivered
it to her client. While the client was on her way to her wedding
rehearsal with her fiancé, the client was contacted by the police
and informed that the marriage license was not valid.
Based on Wolf's actions in this divorce case, she was convicted on
June 16, 1999, on one count of altering a public record with intent to
defraud, contrary to section 943.38(1)(b) of the Wisconsin Statutes, a
Class C felony. Sentence was withheld, and Wolf was placed on probation
for four years conditioned upon performance of community service and
restitution.
Wolf and OLR stipulated to the following conclusions: that by
providing legal services while her law license was under suspension,
Wolf violated SCR 20:5.5(a); that by failing between July 1997 and March
1998 to file her client's petition for divorce, Wolf failed to act with
reasonable diligence, contrary to SCR 20:1.3; that by telling her client
a divorce hearing had been scheduled for November 1997, and
misrepresenting to the client that Wolf had arranged to get the divorce
judgment backdated, Wolf engaged in conduct involving dishonesty,
contrary to SCR 20:8.4(c); that by fraudulently altering a public
document, Wolf committed a criminal act that reflects adversely on her
honesty and trustworthiness, contrary to SCR 20:8.4(b); and that by
representing to the county clerk's office that the fabricated divorce
judgment was genuine, Wolf engaged in dishonesty, contrary to SCR
20:8.4(c).
Wisconsin Lawyer
