Wisconsin
Lawyer
Vol. 81, No. 4, April
2008
Lawyer Discipline
The Office of Lawyer Regulation
(OLR), 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 OLR has offices 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.
Hearing to reinstate Charles J. Chvala
On Tuesday, May 20, 2008, at 9 a.m., a public hearing will be held
before referee
Kim Peterson at the offices of Eiche & Frakes S.C., 2600 N. Mayfair
Rd., Suite
250, Wauwatosa, on the petition of Charles J. Chvala, Madison, 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
Chvala, 2007 WI 47, 300 Wis. 2d 206, 730
N.W.2d 648, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended Chvala's law license
for two years,
retroactive to April 10, 2006, based on his criminal conviction of one
count of misconduct
in public office (a Class E felony), relating to his having used state
employees to work
on political campaigns on state time, and one count of being party to
the crime of making
an excessive campaign contribution (an unclassified felony). The supreme
court found
that Chvala committed two violations of SCR 20:8.4(b), which prohibits a
lawyer from
committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's
honesty, trustworthiness,
or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.
To be reinstated, Chvala 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 order of suspension or revocation and with SCR 22.26.
Relevant information may be provided to or obtained from Office
of Lawyer
Regulation (OLR) investigator Mary Ahlstrom or OLR director Keith L.
Sellen, 110 E. Main St.,
Suite 315, Madison, WI 53703; toll-free (877) 315-6941.
Disciplinary proceeding against James R. Lucius
On Feb. 15, 2008, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law
license of James
R. Lucius, Greenfield, for two years. Disciplinary Proceedings
Against
Lucius, 2008 WI 12.
Six clients filed grievances with the OLR alleging misconduct by
Lucius in his
representation of them in their respective postconviction criminal
matters. On May 29,
2007, Lucius' law license was suspended for his failure to comply with
continuing legal
education (CLE) reporting requirements.
In the first grievance, a few weeks after a
Machner hearing on May 26, 2005, a client asked Lucius to file a
no-merit report. Despite repeated requests, Lucius did not do
so until Jan. 25, 2006. The client then complained that Lucius had not
provided him with
all of his transcripts. On Feb. 13 and March 27, 2006, the court of
appeals ordered Lucius
to provide the transcripts to the client and then certify to the court
of appeals that
he had done so. Lucius did not comply with the orders. By failing to
proceed with a
no-merit report, failing to obtain all the transcripts, and failing to
request deadline
extensions, Lucius failed to act with reasonable diligence and
promptness in representing
a client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3. By failing to comply with the
court of appeals'
orders, Lucius knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a
tribunal, in
violation of SCR 20:3.4(c).
In the second matter, Lucius was appointed to represent a client
in February
2005. Lucius failed to respond to several of the client's letters
inquiring as to the status
of his case. Lucius also failed to consult with the client regarding the
content of
the postconviction motion and brief that Lucius filed, and Lucius failed
to visit the
client until July 28, 2006. By failing to communicate with the client
regarding the status
of the postconviction motion, Lucius failed to keep the client
reasonably informed about
the status of a matter, in violation of former SCR 20:1.4(a).
In a third matter, Lucius was appointed in September 2005 to
represent a client
who wanted Lucius to file an amended postconviction motion for relief.
The court of
appeals extended the deadline for the circuit court to decide the
client's motion until Feb.
15, 2006. On May 25, 2006, because the circuit court had made no
decision and Lucius had
not filed an amended motion, the court of appeals directed Lucius to
provide it with a
status report by June 16, 2006 and, if necessary, a request for another
extension. Lucius
did not respond until June 24, 2006, when he advised the court of
appeals that he had filed
a motion to withdraw from the case. On its own motion, the court of
appeals later
granted an extension of time to preserve the client's postconviction
rights. By failing to
timely file a written status report with the court of appeals and by
failing to request an
extension to preserve the client's postconviction rights, Lucius failed
to act with
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in
violation of SCR 20:1.3.
In a fourth criminal defense matter, Lucius again violated SCR
20:1.3, by his
untimely filing of motions, his failure to file a post-hearing brief,
and his failure to appear
at two hearings, which led the circuit court to impose a contempt
finding and remove
Lucius as counsel. Lucius violated former SCR 20:1.4(a) by failing to
respond to multiple
written inquiries from the client and by otherwise failing to keep the
client apprised
of case status.
A fifth matter stemmed from Lucius' postconviction
representation of a client.
Lucius unnecessarily delayed his receipt of relevant transcripts for
several months. More
than one year after being appointed to represent the client, Lucius
withdrew from the
case, having filed nothing on the client's behalf and otherwise failing
to act to advance
the client's interests. Lucius again violated SCR 20:1.3.
In a sixth matter, Lucius was appointed to provide
postconviction
representation. Lucius failed to timely advance the client's interests,
contrary to SCR 20:1.3.
Further, in violation of former SCR 20:1.4(a), Lucius frequently failed
to respond to client
inquiries or otherwise keep the client informed as to case status.
Lucius also failed
to address the client's inquiry as to the legal consequence of a
no-merit report, and
therefore violated former SCR 20:1.4(b), which required a lawyer to
explain a matter to
the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed
decisions regarding
the representation.
In addition to ordering a two-year license suspension, the court
ordered Lucius to
pay the cost of the disciplinary proceeding. Further, the court ordered
that if Lucius
seeks reinstatement of his law license, the following conditions shall
be imposed on his
reinstatement: 1) If Lucius intends to practice criminal law, he shall
obtain a minimum of
20 approved CLE credits in the criminal law area; and 2) Lucius shall
obtain a minimum of
40 CLE credits in the area of legal ethics.
Disciplinary proceeding against Phaidra S. Knight
On Feb. 26, 2008, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law
license of Phaidra
S. Knight, last known address New York City, for four months, effective
the date of
the order. Knight also was ordered to pay the costs of the proceeding.
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Knight, 2008 WI 13.
Because Knight failed to file an answer to the disciplinary
complaint, the
seven counts of misconduct alleged in the complaint were deemed
admitted. By allowing
Calvin Eleby, an individual who was not licensed to practice law in
Wisconsin, to use
Knight's name and attorney number to represent clients in Wisconsin
escheated fund cases,
Knight assisted Eleby in the unauthorized practice of law, contrary to
former SCR 20:5.5(b).
By allowing Eleby to sign her name to correspondence and pleadings that
she had never
seen, Knight made knowingly false statements of fact or law to a
tribunal through the acts
of another, contrary to former SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) and SCR 20:8.4(a). By
failing to
deposit checks she received from the state treasurer's office for her
own clients to a
client trust account, Knight violated former SCR 20:1.15(a). By failing
to prepare
complete records of trust account funds, Knight violated former SCR
20:1.15(e). By sending
solicitation letters to prospective clients that were not labeled with
the word
"Advertisement" and were not copied to the OLR, Knight
violated former SCR 20:7.3(b). By
unequivocally stating in those solicitation letters that she had located
the addressee's
unclaimed share of escheated funds when she did not know if she was
contacting the correct
person, Knight made false and misleading statements to potential clients
and created a
false expectation about the results she could achieve, in violation of
former SCR 7.1(a).
Finally, by failing to provide the OLR with documents evidencing payment
to clients
after asserting that she had such documents, Knight violated SCR
22.03(6).
As a condition of any reinstatement, Knight will be required to
provide the OLR
with documentation establishing that she paid two clients all funds that
the clients
were entitled to receive. Knight also was ordered to pay the cost of the
proceeding.
Hearing to reinstate Jimmie G. Davison
On June 9, 2008, at 9 a.m., a public hearing will be held before
referee Gary A.
Olstad in Room 134B at the Marathon County Courthouse, 500 Forest
Street, Wausau, on the
petition of Jimmie G. Davison, Wausau, 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
Davison, 173 Wis. 2d 658, 495 N.W.2d 314
(1993), the Wisconsin Supreme Court revoked Davison's law license,
effective Feb. 17,
1993. Davison's misconduct related to his having been found guilty of
first degree sexual
assault of a child, for which he was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment.
Davison's
conduct reflected adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness
as a lawyer.
To be reinstated, Davison 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 order of suspension or revocation and with SCR 22.26.
Relevant information may be provided to or obtained from OLR
investigator
Melody Rader-Johnson or OLR litigation counsel William J. Weigel, 110 E.
Main St., Suite
315, Madison, WI 53703; toll-free (877) 315-6941.
Hearing to reinstate Brian B. Burke
On May 29 and 30, 2008, at 9 a.m., a public hearing will be held at
the Milwaukee
Bar Association, 424 E. Wells St., Milwaukee, on the petition of Brian
B. Burke,
Milwaukee, to reinstate his law license. The hearing will be presided
over by a referee appointed
by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. 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
Burke, 2007 WI 46, 300 Wis. 2d 198, 730 N.W.2d 651, the supreme
court suspended Burke's law license for two years, retroactive to
Jan. 3, 2006, based on his criminal conviction of one count of
misconduct in public office
(a Class E felony), relating to using state employees to work on his
campaign for
state senator, and one count of obstructing an officer (a Class A
misdemeanor), relating
to Burke's having withheld a summary of a staff member's work history,
knowing that it
had been subpoenaed. Another count of misconduct in public office was
dismissed and read
in for sentencing purposes. The supreme court found that Burke committed
two violations
of SCR 20:8.4(b), which prohibits a lawyer from committing a criminal
act that
reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness
as a lawyer in other
respects.
To be reinstated, Burke 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 order of suspension or revocation and with SCR 22.26.
Relevant information may be provided to or obtained from OLR
investigator
Mary Ahlstrom or OLR assistant litigation counsel Sheryl St. Ores, 110
E. Main St., Suite
315, Madison, WI 53703; toll-free (877) 315-6941.
Wisconsin
Lawyer
