Wisconsin Lawyer
Vol. 75, No. 9, September
2002
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 Michael M. Cassidy
The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Michael M. Cassidy, 56,
Madison, entered into an agreement for imposition of a public reprimand,
pursuant to SCR 22.09(1). A referee appointed by the supreme court
thereafter approved the agreement and issued the public reprimand in
accordance with SCR 22.09(3).
Cassidy, a partner in a Madison law firm, became ineligible to
practice law in Wisconsin in June 1998 because of noncompliance with
1996-97 mandatory continuing education requirements. Cassidy practiced
law for the next three years with a suspended license. Cassidy's law
practice during the suspension included municipal matters, small claims
and circuit court trials, real estate, probate and general business
matters, and preparation of wills.
Cassidy's practice while suspended was first reported in a Madison
newspaper article that appeared in July 2001. The article described
Cassidy's representation of a town in a pending lawsuit with a city over
an annexation matter. The city and other defendants had moved to dismiss
the action on the ground that the pleadings were defective because
Cassidy signed and filed them while his license was suspended. The court
dismissed the case with prejudice. The town has appealed, and Cassidy
settled matters with the town by paying damages resulting from the
dismissal of the action. Other instances of unlicensed practice were
discovered in the course of an investigation conducted by the OLR.
Cassidy's license was reinstated on Aug. 15, 2001.
By practicing law while suspended for noncompliance with mandatory
continuing education requirements, Cassidy violated SCR 31.10(1) and
20:8.4(f). Cassidy had no prior disciplinary record.
Top of page
Petition to Reinstate Donald J. Harman
On Oct. 9, 2002, at 10 a.m., a public hearing will be held before
Referee Linda Balisle at 131 W. Wilson St., Suite 802, Madison, on the
petition of Donald J. Harman, La Crosse, to reinstate his Wisconsin law
license. Any interested person may appear at the hearing and be heard in
support of, or in opposition to, the petition for reinstatement.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended Harman's license for six
months, effective Aug. 1, 2001, based upon Harman' s commission of
multiple acts of professional misconduct consisting of: 1) endorsing a
settlement check on behalf of a subrogated carrier without authorization
to do so; 2) failing to provide prompt written notice to the subrogated
carrier that he was holding funds to which it was entitled, and failing
to deliver those funds; 3) holding funds in trust in which he had a
partial interest and thereafter making trust disbursements prior to an
agreed severance of interest in the funds; 4) undertaking a case in
which his representation was materially limited by his responsibilities
to another client; 5) intentionally and without authorization revealing
sensitive information relating to his representation of a client;
6) arranging for a meeting in his office in knowing violation of a
no-contact order; 7) using information related to his
representation of a former client to her disadvantage while
cross-examining her during his representation of a different client; and
8) using information related to his representation of a former client to
her disadvantage by sending her medical records to a district attorney's
office, clerk of court, public defender's office, guardian ad litem, and
a women's shelter in an effort to undermine his former client's
credibility.
A more detailed rendition of the relevant facts, findings, and
conclusions concerning Harman's misconduct can be found in
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Harman, 2001 WI 71, 244 Wis.
2d 438, 628 N.W.2d 362.
As to reinstatement, Harman is required to demonstrate by clear,
satisfactory, and convincing evidence that, among other things, he has
not practiced law during the suspension; he has maintained competence
and learning in the law by attending identified educational activities;
his conduct since the suspension has been exemplary and above reproach;
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; 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; he has fully described all of his
business activities during the period of suspension; he has the moral
character to practice law in Wisconsin; his resumption of the practice
of law will not be detrimental to the administration of justice or
subversive of the public interest; and he has fully complied with the
terms of the suspension order and with the requirements of SCR
22.26.
Further information may be obtained from either OLR Investigator Kay
Sievers, 110 E. Main St., Suite 315, Madison, WI 53703-3383, (877)
315-6941 (toll free); or from OLR Retained Counsel Robert G. Krohn, 24
N. Henry St., P.O. Box 151, Edgerton, WI 53534-0151, (608) 884-3391.
Top of page
Disciplinary Proceeding Against David L.
Nichols
The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law license of David L.
Nichols, 47, Brillion, for six months effective July 19, 2002, for
professional misconduct.
Nichols did not contest four counts alleging misconduct in two client
representations. The first count alleged that Nichols had filed a
frivolous negligence/defamation action against a psychologist who had
given adverse testimony regarding Nichols' client in a custody and
placement dispute, which action was contrary to SCR 20:3.1(a)(1). The
third count alleged that Nichols failed to act with reasonable diligence
and promptness in concluding probate of an estate, contrary to SCR
20:1.3. The second and fourth counts involved Nichols' failure to
cooperate in the investigations by the OLR, contrary to former
SCR 21.03(4) and SCR 22.07(3), as well as the newer SCR 22.03(2),
22.03(6), and 21.15(4), which took effect on Oct. 1, 2000.
The court noted that Nichols' license previously had been suspended
for 60 days for continuing to practice law while administratively
suspended. The court agreed with the referee's recommendation that a
six-month license suspension was appropriate discipline. Nichols was
also ordered to pay the costs of the proceeding within 60 days.
Top of page
Public Reprimand of Thomas L. O'Neil
The OLR and Thomas L. O'Neil, 55, Johnson Creek, entered into an
agreement for imposition of a public reprimand pursuant to SCR 22.09(1).
A referee appointed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court thereafter approved
the agreement, and issued the public reprimand in accordance with SCR
22.09(3).
In December 1996, O'Neil was retained to represent a client in a
civil lawsuit in which the client was named as the defendant. As the
case progressed, the plaintiff requested material related to the
client's personal checking account, including copies of personal checks.
O'Neil agreed to provide copies of the checks, but discovered that it
would be necessary to have copies made by the bank at a charge of $2 per
check. O'Neil admits that after learning of the bank charges, he told
the client not to worry about producing the checks, while at the same
time informing opposing counsel that he was having difficulty in
obtaining the checks from his client.
In November 1998, after several requests to produce copies of the
checks had not been met, the plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions. On
Nov. 9, 1998, O'Neil appeared at the motion hearing and entered into a
stipulation and order regarding the production of the checks and the
payment of the plaintiff's attorney fees as a sanction for failing to
produce the checks. The amount of the sanctions was $1,150. O'Neil paid
the sanctions from his own funds and did not inform the client of the
sanctions until September 1999.
For the next 11 months, O'Neil failed to inform his client of the
stipulation and order to produce copies of the checks. O'Neil also
failed to produce the copies of the checks to the plaintiffs. On Aug.
19, 1999, the court signed an order granting judgment in favor of the
plaintiff. O'Neil did not inform the client of this judgment. A hearing
was then scheduled for Sept. 9, 1999, to determine the damages to be
awarded to the plaintiff. O'Neil did not inform his client of this
hearing. At the hearing on Sept. 9, 1999, O'Neil informed the court that
he had not advised his client of the judgment and the hearing. The court
then scheduled another hearing for Sept. 17, 1999, to determine how to
proceed in the case.
On Sept. 10, 1999, O'Neil informed his client of his mishandling of
the case and of the Sept. 17, 1999, hearing. The client retained new
counsel and the Aug. 19, 1999, order of judgment was not entered or
docketed against the client. O'Neil also acknowledges that he failed to
promptly respond to several of the client's requests for information
regarding the status of the case.
By entering into a stipulation concerning the production of documents
without informing or obtaining the consent of his client, O'Neil failed
to inform and consult with his client regarding the objectives of the
representation, in violation of SCR 20:1.2(a). By failing to produce
documents as stipulated and ordered by the court, O'Neil failed to act
with diligence, in violation of SCR 20:1.3. By failing to inform his
client of a stipulation, order, hearing, and judgment, and by failing to
respond to his client's request for information regarding the status of
the case, O'Neil failed to communicate with his client, in violation of
SCR 20:1.4(a) and (b). By making misrepresentations regarding the
nature of requests for documents and by failing to inform his client of
a stipulation, order, hearing, and judgment, O'Neil engaged in acts of
dishonesty, deceit, and misrepresentation, in violation of
SCR 20:8.4(c).
Top of page
Disciplinary Proceeding Against Jack U.
Shlimovitz
The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the Wisconsin law license of
Jack U. Shlimovitz, Milwaukee, for two years, effective July 11, 2002.
Based upon a stipulation between Shlimovitz and the OLR, the court held
that Shlimovitz committed the federal criminal offense of knowingly
disobeying a lawful rule of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, contrary to 18
U.S.C. § 401(3), by his act of knowingly submitting false
information to a bankruptcy court, thereby committing a criminal act
that reflects adversely on Shlimovitz's honesty, trustworthiness, or
fitness as a lawyer in violation of SCR 20:8.4(b).
Shlimovitz represented a debtor in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding.
In the bankruptcy petition filed on Jan. 18, 2000, Shlimovitz listed the
value of the debtor's home as $70,000. When he filed the petition,
Shlimovitz knew the home was valued at well over $70,000. In 1999
Shlimovitz had arranged for an appraisal of the home that valued it at
$160,000. In addition, prior to filing the bankruptcy petition,
Shlimovitz knew that a potential purchaser of the home had obtained a
$128,000 mortgage from a bank and that the tax assessed value of the
home was $189,000. On Nov. 11, 2000, the bankruptcy estate sold the home
for $155,000.
On July 17, 2001, Shlimovitz was charged in U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin with one count of willfully disobeying
a lawful rule of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 401(3). He entered into a plea agreement. On Nov. 8, 2001,
Shlimovitz pleaded guilty to the charge, was convicted, and was
sentenced to two years' probation. Pursuant to the terms of the plea
agreement, Shlimovitz agreed to surrender his law license for five years
following his sentencing.
The court previously had publicly reprimanded Shlimovitz on March 15,
1994, for permitting an associate to work on a bankruptcy matter that
the associate had previously worked on while employed by the U.S.
Trustee's Office, and for related misrepresentations in connection with
billing these services.
Top of page
Wisconsin
Lawyer
