Wisconsin
Lawyer
Vol. 79, No. 12, December
2006
Lawyer Discipline
The
Office
of Lawyer Regulation, 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 lawyers. The
Office of Lawyer Regulation has offices located at 110 E. Main
St., Suite 315, Madison, WI 53703; toll-free (877) 315-6941. The full
text of items summarized in this column can be viewed at
www.wicourts.gov/olr.
Lawyer Discipline
Disciplinary proceedings against LeRoy Kramer
On Oct. 10, 2006, the Wisconsin Supreme Court publicly reprimanded
LeRoy Kramer, Harbor Springs, Mich., as
discipline reciprocal to a public reprimand imposed against Kramer's
Michigan law license by the State of Michigan Attorney Discipline
Board on April 25, 2006, effective May 17, 2006. Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Kramer, 2006 WI 117.
The Michigan public reprimand arose out of Kramer's violation of
Michigan Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1(a) by failing
to provide competent representation to a client.
Top of page
Disciplinary proceedings against Bruce Nash
On Oct. 10, 2006, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the Wisconsin
law license of Bruce Nash, last known to have
practiced in Chicago, for one year, as discipline reciprocal to a
one-year suspension imposed against Nash's Illinois law license by the
Illinois Supreme Court, effective Dec.
13, 2005. Nash also failed to notify Wisconsin's Office of
Lawyer Regulation (OLR) of his Illinois suspension within 20 days of
that suspension, contrary to SCR 22.22(1). Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Nash, 2006 WI 116.
The Illinois suspension arose out of Nash's violation of the
Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (IPRC) and involved
practicing law in a jurisdiction where doing so violated the
regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction, in violation of
Rule
5.5(a), IRPC; conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of
justice, in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(5), IRPC; and conduct that tended
to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the
legal profession into disrepute, in violation of Illinois SCR 771.
Nash's Wisconsin law license has been suspended since 1989 for
nonpayment of dues and since 1990 for CLE
noncompliance. Nash also received a one-year reciprocal disciplinary
suspension from the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2003.
Top of page
Disciplinary proceedings against J.E. Nugent
On Oct. 10, 2006, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law
license of J.E. Nugent for 60 days, effective Nov. 21, 2006.
The court also ordered Nugent to pay the $4,911.70 cost of the
disciplinary proceeding. Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Nugent,
2006 WI 114.
The court adopted a referee's findings of fact and conclusions of
law and determined that Nugent engaged in six instances
of misconduct. In one matter, Nugent failed to file state personal
income tax returns and corporate tax returns for his law firm
for 1996 through 2001, in violation of supreme court decisions
regulating the conduct of lawyers, contrary to SCR 20:8.4(f).
Nugent also willfully failed to respond to OLR investigative letters,
in violation of SCR 22.03(6).
In the other matter, Nugent represented a client in two different
cases. In one case, Nugent failed to reduce the contingent
fee agreement to writing and ultimately failed to provide his client
with a written statement of the matter's outcome showing
the remittance to the client, in violation of SCR 20:1.5(c). Nugent
also failed to provide copies of important documents to the
client and failed to respond to the client's status inquiries, in
violation of SCR 20:1.4(a). In the other case, Nugent violated former
SCR 20:1.15(b) by failing to promptly notify the client of his receipt
of garnishment proceeds and by failing to promptly deliver
the proceeds to the client. Nugent also failed to respond to multiple
OLR requests for supplemental information, in violation of
SCR 22.03(6).
Nugent received a private reprimand in 1986 and a public reprimand
in 2003.
Top of page
Disciplinary proceedings against Todd J. Beatse
(a/k/a T. James Beatse)
On Oct. 11, 2006, the supreme court publicly reprimanded Todd J.
Beatse, 40, LaCrosse, for professional misconduct. Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Beatse, 2006 WI 115.
Beatse was employed as a Monroe County assistant district attorney.
On or about Jan. 24 or 25, 2005, Beatse left his office
to attend court hearings. While he was out of his office, a coworker
who was shutting down Beatse's computer discovered
pornographic images that had been downloaded from the Internet and
minimized on the bottom of the computer screen. An investigation of
the source of the pornography and of Beatse's computer usage ensued.
It was discovered that Beatse had spent numerous hours
viewing pornographic images on the Internet, had lied about the source
of the pornography, had continued to view pornography after he
had been informed it was unacceptable, had used the state's email
system to send and receive sexually explicit email messages, and
had made inappropriate comments to a Monroe County employee in a work
environment.
By lying to his coworkers and his supervisor about the source of and
reason for pornography on his work computer, by lying
about his continued viewing of pornography on his work computer after
it was discovered, and by lying about sending and
receiving sexually explicit emails, Beatse engaged in conduct
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, in violation
of
SCR 20:8.4(c).
By making offensive comments to the county employee and by using the
state email system to send and receive
numerous messages containing inappropriate sexual and other offensive
content, Beatse violated the attorney's oath, including the
requirement to "abstain from all offensive personality,"
see SCR 40.15, thereby also violating SCR 20:8.4(g).
Top of page
Public reprimand of Thomas A. Van Beckum
On Oct. 5, 2006, the supreme court publicly reprimanded Thomas A. Van
Beckum, Kenosha, by consent for having committed
five counts of professional misconduct involving a grievance
matter.
Van Beckum's public reprimand resulted from misconduct that included
failing to act with reasonable diligence and
promptness in representing a client; failing to keep a client
reasonably informed about the status of a matter and failing to promptly
comply
with reasonable requests for information; failing to provide the
client with reasonable notice of Van Beckum's need to withdraw from
the representation before a June 14, 2004, hearing; failing after June
15, 2004, to cooperate with the client's and successor
counsel's efforts to obtain information relevant to the case so that
successor counsel could adequately advise and represent the client;
falsely advising the circuit court on June 14, 2004, that: 1) the
client was aware of the June 14, 2004, hearing and its subject matter;
2)
the client had been informed about Van Beckum's personal problems and
need to withdraw; and 3) the client wanted to prosecute
the case without counsel; and providing false information to the
client regarding the case status and progress, including that
extensions had been granted on the various deadlines in the scheduling
order when no such extensions had been granted.
Van Beckum had not previously been disciplined for professional
misconduct.
Top of page
Public reprimand of James G. Moldenhauer
The OLR and James G. Moldenhauer, Eau Claire, 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 on Oct.
3, 2006, in accordance with SCR 22.09(3). The public reprimand stemmed
from two matters investigated by the OLR.
In the first matter, a client hired Moldenhauer to represent her in
resolving federal and state tax liabilities stemming from
the operation of a business by her husband, who had died unexpectedly.
According to the client, the goal of the representation was
to negotiate reductions in the amounts owed and to enter affordable
payment plan agreements with the state and the
federal governments. Moldenhauer failed to advance the client's
interests in any appreciable manner in the approximately
six-year-long period that he represented her, in violation of SCR
20:1.3. The client hired successor counsel. Moldenhauer failed to timely
or meaningfully address successor counsel's specific, written requests
for the client's file, in violation of SCR 20:1.16(d). In violation
of SCR 22.03(2) and 22.03(6), Moldenhauer failed to timely file a
written response to the client's grievance after service by
ordinary mail and personal service and filed a response only after the
OLR filed a motion in the supreme court pursuant to SCR 22.03(4).
The second matter involved Moldenhauer's representation of a client
in a divorce. Following termination of the
representation, Moldenhauer violated SCR 20:1.16(d) by failing to
timely provide the client with an itemized billing statement and a
refund of
the unearned portion of the funds advanced by the client, either on
his own initiative or in response to the client's specific
requests. Moldenhauer eventually provided the requested itemized
statement and returned the unearned portion of the advanced funds.
In violation of SCR 22.03(2) and 22.03(6), Moldenhauer failed to
timely file a written response to the client's grievance after
service by ordinary mail and personal service and filed a response
only after the OLR filed a motion in the supreme court pursuant to
SCR 22.03(4).
Moldenhauer received a private reprimand in 1996 for violations of
SCR 20:1.3, 20:1.4(a), and former SCR 20:1.15(b) in
a probate matter.
Top of page
Public reprimand of Kimberly A. Theobald
The OLR and Kimberly A. Theobald, Waukesha, 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) on Oct. 5, 2006. The public reprimand
stemmed from three matters investigated by the OLR.
In the first matter, Theobald represented a client who had been sued
by her ex-husband, who sought the return of
certain personal property. Theobald failed to timely answer the civil
complaint and failed to appear at two hearings in the matter,
in violation of SCR 20:1.3. Theobald failed to answer many of the
client's telephone calls over approximately four months, in
violation of SCR 20:1.4(a). The investigation disclosed that Theobald
was maintaining certain of her earned fees, and other funds
belonging to her, in her trust account for significant periods of
time, contrary to former SCR 20:1.15(a), effective through June 30,
2004.
In violation of former SCR 20:1.15(e), also effective through June 30,
2004, Theobald failed to maintain and keep a trust
account transaction register and client ledgers that showed a
consistent and accurate running balance, the source of each deposit, and
the purpose of each disbursement, and she failed to maintain duplicate
deposit slips.
In the second matter, a client hired Theobald as successor counsel
in seeking the custody and placement of the client's
minor grandson, who had lived with the client following the death of
the child's mother. The child's father contested the client's
efforts. The parties reached an agreement in the matter, and Theobald
was responsible for preparing a stipulation that reflected
the agreement terms. Theobald failed to timely do so, in violation of
SCR 20:1.3. The child's father complained that Theobald's
client was not following the terms of the parties' agreement, and that
Theobald had not reduced the agreement to writing. The
father obtained a hearing, which Theobald was unable to attend, and at
which the court awarded sole custody and primary placement to
the father. Theobald then filed an untimely appeal, in violation of
SCR 20:1.3. Theobald did not file a timely written response to
the client's grievance, in violation of SCR 22.03(2) and 20:8.4(f).
In the third matter, a client hired Theobald in 2001 to represent
him in a custody and placement dispute between the client
and his ex-girlfriend, the mother of his child. Theobald violated SCR
20:1.3 by failing to prepare and file a motion to amend a
placement order, and by failing to prepare and file a contempt order
following a hearing at which the adverse party was found in
contempt and at which the court commissioner asked Theobald to prepare
the contempt order. Theobald violated SCR 20:1.4(a)
by failing to return many of the client's telephone calls, emails, and
letters over more than six months and by failing to inform
the client that Theobald would not complete a motion to amend
placement until the client's bill was paid in full.
Theobald received a public reprimand in 2004 for misconduct
involving violations of SCR 20:1.3, 20:1.4(a), and 22.03(2).
Top of page
Reinstatement of Robert L. Sherry denied
On Oct. 31, 2006, the Wisconsin Supreme Court denied Robert L.
Sherry's petition for reinstatement of his law license and
ordered him to pay the cost of the reinstatement proceeding.
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Sherry, 2006 WI 119.
On Aug. 13, 2003, the supreme court suspended Sherry's license for
nine months, based on 21 counts of misconduct involving
his representation of several clients. Disciplinary Proceedings
Against
Sherry, 2003 WI 123. Sherry's license had been under
suspension since a 2001 administrative suspension for noncompliance
with CLE requirements and a subsequent 2001 suspension for
failure to cooperate with an OLR investigation.
On July 25, 2005, Sherry filed a petition for reinstatement of his
law license. However, Sherry failed to respond to the
OLR's reinstatement questionnaire and failed to appear at a final
scheduling conference. The referee then recommended that
Sherry's petition be denied. The court adopted the referee's report
and concluded that Sherry failed to demonstrate by clear, satisfactory,
and convincing evidence that his resumption of the practice of law
would not be detrimental to the administration of justice or
subversive of the public interest.
Top of page
Hearing to reinstate Gricel Echavarria
On Jan. 29, 2007, at 9 a.m., a public hearing will be held before
referee Catherine Rottier at the Boardman Law Firm, 4th
Floor, U.S. Bank Building, Capitol Square, Madison, on the petition of
Gricel Echavarria, Madison, to reinstate her law license.
Any interested person may appear at the hearing and be heard in
support of, or in opposition to, the petition for reinstatement.
In Disciplinary Proceedings Against Echavarria,
2004 WI 51, 271 Wis. 2d 289, Echavarria's law license was suspended for
two years, effective Nov. 17, 2003, for her commission of criminal
conduct in conspiring to produce and transfer false
identification documents, counterfeit resident alien cards, and
counterfeit Social Security cards, which conduct resulted in her
conviction of
a federal felony.
To be reinstated, Echavarria has the burden of substantiating by
clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence
that: 1) she has the moral character to practice law in Wisconsin; 2)
her resumption of the practice of law will not be detrimental to the
administration
of justice or subversive of the public interest; 3) her
representations in the petition, including the representations required
by
SCR 22.29(4)(a)-(m) and 22.29(5), are substantiated; and 4) she has
complied fully with the terms of the suspension or revocation
order and with the requirements of SCR 22.26.
Relevant information may be provided to or obtained from OLR
investigator Mary Ahlstrom or OLR assistant litigation
counsel William F. Bedker, 110 E. Main St., Suite 315, Madison, WI
53703, (877) 315-6941.
Top of page
Hearing to reinstate Arik J. Guenther
On Jan. 23, 2007, at 9 a.m., a public hearing will be held before
referee Kim M. Peterson in Room A, Fond du Lac
County Courthouse, City-County Government Center, 160 S. Macy St.,
Fond du Lac, on the petition of Arik J. Guenther, Fond du Lac,
to reinstate his law license. Any interested person may appear at the
hearing and be heard in support of, or in opposition to,
the petition for reinstatement.
In Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Guenther, 2005 WI 133, 285 Wis. 2d 587, the supreme court
suspended Guenther's
law license for eight months, effective Aug. 30, 2005. The court's
order concerned two separate but related disciplinary actions in
which the referees had recommended a six-month suspension and a
two-month suspension and had collectively found a total of 15
counts of misconduct.
Guenther's misconduct included failing to keep a client reasonably
informed and engaging in conduct involving
dishonesty, deceit, or misrepresentation in a divorce matter; failing
to provide an accurate accounting of the client's funds still held in
trust, removing more fees than he was owed, and failing to provide an
accurate accounting to the OLR; failing to maintain complete
trust account records, failing to submit complete records for the
OLR's inspection, and falsely certifying that he was retaining
required trust account records; failing to hold numerous client funds
in trust; failing to cooperate with the OLR investigation; dishonest
or fraudulent conduct; failing to appropriately supervise a
nonlawyer's conduct; and failing to properly deposit and record the
funds
he received and to document the amounts he was forwarding to the
client or paying himself for fees, while he failed to hold
client funds in trust and failed to provide requested trust account
records for the OLR's inspection.
Guenther was ordered to file quarterly trust account reports with
the OLR for two years as a condition of reinstatement. In
its order, the court noted that Guenther had received three prior
private reprimands.
To be reinstated, Guenther has the burden of substantiating by
clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that:
1) he has the moral character to practice law in Wisconsin; 2) his
resumption of the practice of law will not be detrimental to the
administration
of justice or subversive of the public interest; 3) all of his
representations in his reinstatement petition are substantiated; and 4)
he
has complied fully with the terms of the suspension or revocation
order and with SCR 22.26.
Relevant information may be provided to or obtained from OLR
investigator Nancy L. Warner or OLR litigation
counsel William J. Weigel, 110 E. Main St., Suite 315, Madison, WI
53703, (877) 315-6941.
Top of page
Wisconsin
Lawyer
