| |
 |
|
| Vol. 74, No. 9, September 2001
|
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.
Public Reprimand of Thomas J. Fink
In an order filed June 28, 2001, the supreme court publicly reprimanded
Thomas J. Fink, 65, Menasha, for professional misconduct stemming from
representation of a man in a probation revocation proceeding. In violation
of SCR 20:1.4(a), Fink failed to provide the client with documents pertaining
to the revocation proceeding, failed to keep the client reasonably informed
about the case status, and failed to promptly respond to the client's
reasonable requests for information in the matter. After his representation
of the client in the revocation proceeding concluded, Fink violated SCR
20:1.16(d) by failing to provide the client with a copy of the case file
and otherwise failing to take reasonable steps to protect the client's
interests.
Fink violated former SCR 21.03(4) and former SCR 22.07(2), each in effect
prior to Oct. 1, 2000, by failing to respond to BAPR's written requests
for a response to the client's grievance, and, after referral of the case
to a district investigative committee, by making a misrepresentation to
the committee concerning his method of handling collect calls at a time
relevant to the client's allegations of a lack of communication.
Disciplinary
Proceeding Against Donald J. Harman
On June 26, 2001, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered a six-month suspension
of the law license of Donald J. Harman, 70, La Crosse, effective Aug.
1, 2001. Harman engaged in misconduct in two matters.
In the first matter, Harman represented a man on a personal injury claim
stemming from an automobile accident. An insurer provided Harman with
notice of a subrogation claim. The case settled, and the insurer for the
other driver delivered a check to Harman, made payable to Harman's client,
Harman, a chiropractor who treated the client, and the subrogated carrier.
Harman endorsed the check on behalf of the subrogated carrier without
authorization to do so, contrary to SCR 20:8.4(c).
Upon receipt of the settlement funds, Harman failed to notify the subrogated
carrier that he was holding funds for it in trust, and instead, after
waiting approximately 30 days, Harman sent the subrogated carrier a check
representing less than one-fourth of its claim, a reduction that was not
the product of any negotiation or agreement on the part of the carrier.
Harman violated SCR 20:1.15(b), by failing to provide prompt notice to
the subrogated carrier that he was holding funds in which it had an interest,
and by failing to deliver funds to which it was entitled. Harman violated
SCR 20:1.15(d), by holding funds in trust in which he had a partial interest,
and thereafter making disbursements prior to an agreed severance of interest
in the funds.
In the second matter, a woman met with Harman concerning a child custody
case, and further consulted with Harman about a potential legal malpractice
action against an attorney who had earlier represented the woman in a
medical malpractice case. Harman obtained the client's medical malpractice
case file, which included medical records. While still representing the
woman, Harman undertook criminal defense representation of the woman's
live-in boyfriend in a case stemming from a domestic altercation in which
the woman was the victim. Harman did not have the woman's written consent
to his representation of the boyfriend, placing Harman in violation of
SCR 20:1.7(b).
Harman wrote to the prosecution and referred to materials, including
medical records, from the woman's earlier medical malpractice case file,
which Harman indicated would show that the woman had a history of drug
and alcohol dependence, and self-abusive behavior. Harman then forwarded
some of the woman's medical records to the prosecution. The woman had
not authorized Harman's disclosures, which were done in violation of SCR
20:1.6(a).
The woman and the boyfriend had another altercation leading to criminal
charges against each of them, and Harman again represented the boyfriend.
The woman obtained public defender representation. Despite knowledge that
both the woman and the boyfriend were subject to no contact provisions
in their respective bail bonds, Harman arranged for the two of them to
meet in his office to resolve issues between them, and by doing so, Harman
knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, thus
violating SCR 20:3.4(c).
The woman later filed a petition seeking a temporary injunction and
restraining order against the boyfriend. Harman appeared at a hearing
on the petition, during which Harman cross-examined the woman, making
use of information obtained from his prior representation of the woman,
in violation of SCR 20:1.9(b). Harman again violated SCR 20:1.9(b) when
he made a further unauthorized disclosure of certain of the woman's medical
records to the district attorney's office, the clerk of court, the public
defender's office, the guardian ad litem in the woman's custody case,
and a women's shelter. Harman acknowledged that he released the records
for the specific purpose of undermining the woman's credibility and to
keep her from continuing to make what he viewed as false claims against
the boyfriend.
Harman was publicly reprimanded for misconduct by the court in 1987.
Harman consented to imposition of a public reprimand for misconduct by
the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (BAPR) in 1989. The
court again publicly reprimanded Harman in 1998.
|
