Wisconsin Lawyer: Lawyer Discipline:

State Bar of Wisconsin

Sign In
    Wisconsin LawyerWisconsin Lawyer

News & Pubs Search


    Lawyer Discipline

    Share This:

    Wisconsin Lawyer
    Vol. 76, No. 3, March 2003

    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.

    Hearing to reinstate John Miller Carroll

    On April 15, 2003, at 11 a.m., a public hearing will take place before referee Konrad T. Tuchscherer at the Waupaca County Courthouse, Room LL-42, 811 Harding St., Waupaca, on the petition of John Miller Carroll of New London to reinstate his Wisconsin law license. Carroll formerly practiced law from Milwaukee and Racine county offices. 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 Carroll's law license for one year, effective Jan. 10, 2002, for professional misconduct consisting of: failing to diligently pursue a client's claim, by virtue of having permitted a lawsuit to expire without service; failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of the matter and failure to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information despite his client's numerous requests for information during the course of litigation; misrepresenting to the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (BAPR) the nature of his representation of a client by failing to inform BAPR that a lawsuit was dismissed; engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation by depositing in his trust account a check that contained a forged signature; failing to hold a client's funds in trust by moving refunded bail from his trust account into his business operations account; failing to respond to the client's request to return the refunded bail and to account for the funds within a reasonable time; failing to retain the disputed bail amount in trust pending resolution of the dispute with a client; and failing to timely forward a refund check to a client after termination of representation. A more detailed account of Carroll's misconduct is recited in Disciplinary Proceedings Against Carroll, 2001 WI 130, 248 Wis. 2d 662, 636 N.W.2d 718.

    As to reinstatement, Carroll is required to demonstrate by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that, among other things, he has not practiced law or engaged in certain law-work activity during the suspension; he has maintained competence and learning in the law by attendance at identified educational activities; his conduct since the suspension has been exemplary and above reproach; he has a proper understanding of and attitude towards 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; he has fully described all of his business activities; he has the moral character to practice law in Wisconsin; and he has fully complied with the terms of the suspension order and with the requirements of SCR 22.26.

    Further information can be obtained from OLR investigator Mary Ahlstrom or assistant litigation counsel Julie M. Falk, 110 E. Main St., Suite 315, Madison, WI 53703; (608) 267-7274 or (877) 315-6941 (toll free).

    Disciplinary proceeding against Anne B. Shindell

    The Wisconsin Supreme Court has suspended the law license of Anne B. Shindell, age 50, Milwaukee, for one year effective Dec. 27, 2002.

    Shindell's misconduct involved failures to cooperate with the investigation of BAPR, predecessor to the OLR, contrary to former SCR 21.03(4) and 22.07(2); failing to provide diligent legal representation on behalf of three clients, contrary to SCR 20:1.3; failing to respond to letters and telephone calls from three clients regarding the status of their claims, contrary to SCR 20:1.4(a); failing to inform one client about the status of negotiations and about certain consequences for not pursuing a particular claim and failing to inform another client about his former employer's position as to a severance agreement in a timely manner, contrary to SCR 20:1.4(b); failing to take steps reasonably practicable to protect clients' interests contrary to SCR 20:1.16(d); and filing a judgment of satisfaction on her own behalf without authority from her client and falsely asserting within the document that the small claims judgment had been satisfied to the client's satisfaction, contrary to SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) and SCR 20:8.4(c).

    Shindell also was ordered to refund $2,800 to one client, required to pay the small claims judgment entered in favor of another client in the amount of the judgment plus statutory interest, and ordered to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings. In another proceeding, on Oct. 21, 2002, the Wisconsin Supreme Court summarily suspended Shindell's law license based on criminal convictions for attempted theft by fraud and resisting or obstructing an officer.

    Public reprimand of Carl Jordan

    The OLR and Carl Jordan, 36, formerly of Kenosha, agreed to an 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). The reprimand is based upon Jordan's conduct in two matters.

    On June 8, 1999, Jordan's law license was suspended for his failure to comply with CLE requirements. At the time of his suspension, Jordan was employed in Michigan and was not engaged in the practice of law in Wisconsin. In January 2001, Jordan accepted a position as an assistant district attorney in Wisconsin. Before commencing his employment, Jordan informed his employer that he would have to reinstate his law license.

    On Jan. 16, 2001, Jordan began his employment with the DA's office in Wisconsin. For the first several days of his employment, Jordan observed other attorneys in court, drafted complaints, and made routine court appearances on 12 separate cases. Jordan then informed his supervisor that he could not make further court appearances until his license was reinstated. On Feb. 15, 2001, Jordan's license was reinstated.

    By engaging in the practice of law while his license was suspended, Jordan violated SCR 20:8.4(f) and SCR 31.10.

    In January 2002, Jordan was assigned to handle a misdemeanor battery and disorderly conduct case. The defendant in the case was also a witness for the prosecution in a double homicide case being handled by the DA's office.

    On Jan. 10, 2002, a hearing was held in the defendant's case. After the hearing, Jordan met the defendant's girlfriend, who was the victim in the misdemeanor case, and asked her to come to his office to discuss the case against her boyfriend. During that meeting, the woman told Jordan that she wanted the case against her boyfriend dropped. Jordan and the woman also discussed personal matters during the meeting. Jordan asked the woman if she would like to come over to his apartment to watch some movies that night and gave her his home phone number. Jordan and the woman met at a restaurant that night. After dinner, they went to two bars and then to Jordan's apartment, where they engaged in sexual intercourse.

    The following morning, Jordan called the woman. During this phone conversation, the woman asked Jordan if he would consider changing the recommendation in her boyfriend's case or dismissing the case. Jordan told the woman he would have to discuss the case further with her boyfriend's attorney and with the assistant district attorney who was handling the case in which the boyfriend was to serve as a prosecution witness. Jordan did not indicate to the woman whether he would make a change in the sentencing recommendation.

    On Jan. 14, 2002, Jordan wrote some notes in the file maintained by the DA's office regarding the case against the woman's boyfriend. The notes indicated that, based on the victim's wishes and the fact that the defendant was cooperating with the prosecution of the double homicide case, Jordan would recommend probation without jail time. Jordan did not appear in any further hearings in the case.

    On Feb. 6, 2002, Jordan was suspended with pay by the DA's office. On Feb. 8, 2002, Jordan submitted a letter of resignation. In March 2002, a special prosecutor was appointed to prosecute the case against the defendant.

    By engaging in sexual relations with a victim in a criminal case that Jordan was assigned to prosecute, Jordan's representation of his client, the state of Wisconsin, may have been materially limited by his own interests, in violation of SCR 20:1.7(b).