Sign In
    Wisconsin Lawyer
    August 07, 2009

    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.

    Wisconsin LawyerWisconsin Lawyer
    Vol. 82, No. 8, August 2009

    Public reprimand of Christopher S. Carson

    The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Christopher S. Carson, 40, Elm Grove, agreed to imposition of a public reprimand pursuant to SCR 22.09(1). A supreme court-appointed referee approved the agreement and issued the public reprimand in accordance with SCR 22.09(3) on May 18, 2009. The reprimand was based on Carson’s misconduct relating to a single grievance.

    A man hired Carson to represent him as the respondent in a divorce that involved child placement issues. Before any placement order was issued, Carson filed a petition for an order to enforce physical placement. This petition is a statutory form under Wis. Stat. section 767.242(3) and states that the petitioner is awarded periods of placement by order of the court and that a copy of the placement order is attached. The form’s purpose is to provide relief to parties who have been awarded periods of placement but subsequently had placement denied by the other party.

    The week after Carson filed the petition, the presiding circuit court judge told Carson that neither party had been awarded placement; that Carson had not attached a copy of the placement order that he alleged was being violated; and that Carson had filed an enforcement action that appeared to be without basis and untrue. Carson replied that he was not required to attach any placement order and that the petitioner had violated orders imposed by the Wisconsin Legislature related to stealing children. A family court commissioner who presided at a temporary order hearing warned Carson that he should withdraw the petition, but Carson did not do so.

    Carson continued to prosecute the petition, which the circuit court found to be frivolous, and the court awarded attorney fees against Carson. Carson appealed the sanction to the court of appeals, which affirmed the circuit court and remanded the case for determination of costs and fees. In all, Carson was ordered to pay fees of almost $9,400.

    Carson failed to provide competent representation, contrary to SCR 20:1.1, when he filed the statutory form that plainly required that a copy of a previous order be attached to the form, when no such previous order existed. Carson violated SCR 20:3.1(a)(1) when he continued to prosecute the petition after the circuit court judge and family court commissioner warned him that the petition lacked any meritorious basis.

    During the case, Carson submitted a brief to the court of appeals in which he stated that the wife had withheld nearly all visitation from the husband before the first temporary hearing. Throughout the rest of the brief, Carson consistently said that the wife had withheld all placement. By repeatedly stating that the adverse party had withheld all placement when he knew that his client had received some placement, Carson violated former SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) (effective before July 1, 2007), prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement to a tribunal.

    In 2008, Carson received a private reprimand for other misconduct.

    Top of Page

    Disciplinary proceeding against Scott E. Hansen

    On June 18, 2009, the supreme court suspended the law license of Scott E. Hansen, Appleton, for nine months as discipline for misconduct occurring in four client matters. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hansen, 2009 WI 56. The court further ordered that Hansen pay court-specified restitution amounts and the cost of the disciplinary action. The court also ordered Hansen to undergo a medical evaluation by a medical professional selected by the OLR, “with the understanding that Scott E. Hansen may also submit an evaluation performed by a medical professional of his choice.” This order stemmed from Hansen’s claim that a depressive disorder contributed to his misconduct.

    In the first matter leading to misconduct charges, Hansen represented a man in a criminal case. Hansen failed to take any action in furtherance of the client’s interests, in violation of SCR 20:1.3; failed to respond to client inquiries, contrary to former SCR 20:1.4(a); accepted and kept an unreasonable fee, in violation of former SCR 20:1.5(a); failed to withdraw from the representation when a medical condition impaired his ability to represent the client, contrary to SCR 20:1.16(a)(2); failed to refund any portion of the advanced funds, in violation of former SCR 20:1.16(d); and failed to cooperate with the OLR in its investigation of the client’s grievance, in violation of SCR 21.15(4) and 22.03(2) and (6), which are enforced under SCR 20:8.4(f).

    In the second matter, Hansen was hired to provide appellate representation to a client who was convicted of a felony and imprisoned. The representation was arranged by the client’s stepfather. Hansen met with the client in prison but violated SCR 20:1.3 by thereafter failing to take any action in the matter, including failing to enter an appearance, secure transcripts, or otherwise ensure that postconviction remedies were protected. Hansen violated former SCR 20:1.4(a) by failing to keep the client and the client’s stepfather informed as to case status and failing to respond to status inquiries from them. Hansen violated SCR 20:1.4(b) by failing to explain postconviction processes to the client such that the client could make informed decisions regarding the direction of the representation. As in the first matter, Hansen violated former SCR 20:1.5(a), SCR 20:1.16(a)(2), and former SCR 20:1.16(d). Hansen failed to cooperate with the OLR’s investigation, in violation of SCR 21.15(4), 22.03(2) and(6), and 20:8.4(f).

    In the third matter, Hansen provided appellate-level representation to a client convicted of multiple felonies. Hansen violated SCR 20:1.3 by failing to order a particular transcript; failing to properly and timely file statements on transcripts, briefs, and appendices; and otherwise failing to comply with a court of appeals’ order. Hansen violated former SCR 20:1.4(a) by failing to inform the client of multiple orders from the court of appeals and failing to inform the client of Hansen’s multiple failures to comply with the court’s orders. Hansen violated SCR 20:1.4(b) by failing to inform the client of his medical condition, insofar as it interfered with his ability to properly represent the client’s interests. In violation of former SCR 20:1.5(a), Hansen accepted and kept a fee that was rendered unreasonable by his failure to complete the representation. Hansen violated former SCR 20:1.15(b)(4) by depositing the advanced fee into his business account and not his trust account. Hansen violated SCR 20:1.16(a)(2) by failing to withdraw from the representation when a medical condition impaired his ability to represent the client. Hansen violated former SCR 20:1.16(d) in two respects, by failing to promptly surrender all papers and property to which the client was entitled and by failing to return any portion of the unearned advance fee. Hansen violated former SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) by providing false information to the court of appeals regarding filing of a brief and appendix and regarding compliance with that court’s orders. Hansen violated SCR 20:8.4(c), which prohibits conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, by stating in an email to the client’s wife that he would forward certain work product and a brief to the client, when no work product or brief existed. Hansen failed to cooperate with the OLR’s investigation and thus violated SCR 21.15(4), 22.03(2) and (6), and 20:8.4(f).

    Hansen represented a fourth client in a criminal traffic-law matter. Hansen violated SCR 20:1.3 by failing to appear at two scheduled hearings and by otherwise failing to complete the matter or advance the client’s interests. Hansen failed to sufficiently communicate with the client, violating former SCR 20:1.4(a). As in the other matters, Hansen violated SCR 20:1.16(a)(2). Hansen failed to cooperate with the OLR’s investigation, contrary to SCR 21.15(4), 22.03(2) and (6), and 20:8.4(f).

    Hansen’s prior discipline consisted of a private reprimand imposed in 1995. Hansen’s law license has been administratively suspended since October 2007 for nonpayment of mandatory State Bar dues.

    Top of Page

    Disciplinary proceeding against Joan M. Boyd

    On June 26, 2009, the supreme court suspended the law license of Joan M. Boyd, Shawano, for six months. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Boyd, 2009 WI 59. Boyd had filed a stipulation with the OLR in which she pleaded no contest to 13 counts of misconduct arising from five separate matters and joined the OLR in recommending a six-month suspension and an order for restitution.

    In three of the matters, Boyd represented individuals in postconviction or sentence-modification matters. In those matters, Boyd failed to: provide competent representation, proceed on behalf of clients, inform a client of case developments, provide requested information to another client, refund a partial fee, provide an accounting after the representation was terminated, and cooperate with an OLR investigation. She also made an unsupportable allegation relating to a judge’s integrity.

    In a fourth matter, Boyd failed to deposit into her client trust account a check that included funds to pay a contractor and then failed to pay the contractor.

    The fifth matter involved evidence of improper advertising and a criminal conviction for disorderly conduct.

    The court ordered Boyd to pay restitution to three clients.

    Boyd’s law license was suspended for five months in August 2008 and had remained suspended from that matter. Boyd was publicly reprimanded in 2000 and in 2006.

    Top of Page

    Public reprimand of Tim Osicka

    On May 28, 2009, the supreme court publicly reprimanded Tim Osicka, Schofield. Osicka also was ordered to pay the full cost of the disciplinary proceeding, less an amount related to a motion necessary to clarify the referee’s recommended discipline. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Osicka, 2009 WI 38.

    Osicka violated former SCR 20:1.4(a) by not responding to a client’s fee-related questions. The court rejected Osicka’s argument that this rule only required an attorney to keep a client informed about the status of the client’s legal matter, noting that the second part of the rule required attorneys to “promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.” The court adopted the referee’s finding that Osicka had at most spent $450 worth of time on the client’s representation, and the court ordered Osicka to pay $150 restitution to the client. 

    The court also found that Osicka violated SCR 22:03(2) and (6) by failing to provide a written response to the OLR within 20 days of being served with a request for a written response and by failing to respond to the OLR’s requests for documents until after the court issued an order to show cause why Osicka’s license should not be temporarily suspended due to his willful failure to cooperate.

    Osicka received a public reprimand in 2002.

    Top of Page

    Disciplinary proceeding against Michael D. Mandelman

    On May 29, 2009, the supreme court suspended the law license of Michael D. Mandelman, Milwaukee, for one year and ordered him to pay the cost of the disciplinary proceeding. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Mandelman, 2009 WI 40.

    In a stipulation between Mandelman and the OLR, Mandelman acknowledged engaging in six counts of misconduct in three matters. In the first matter, Mandelman collected a $1,250 fee without performing any work, contrary to SCR 20:1.5(a), which requires that a lawyer’s fee be reasonable, and retained $8,456.44 from the client’s settlement in his trust account for more than four years, contrary to former SCR 20:1.15(b) and former SCR 20:1.15(d), which required prompt disbursement of client funds and full accounting on request. Mandelman also failed to discuss the case with the client, and he advised the client that he was diligently working on the case when he was not, contrary to SCR 20:1.4(b), which requires a lawyer to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions. The referee found that Mandelman owed $1,250 restitution to the client.

    In the second matter, Mandelman or his partner had signed liens in favor of a chiropractor on behalf of 15 clients in personal injury actions. In each case, Mandelman failed to send the chiropractor written notice when the client’s settlement proceeds were received and deposited to Mandelman’s trust account. In one of those cases, Mandelman subsequently wrote a trust account check to the chiropractor for an amount that was $2,200 more than the chiropractor was owed because Mandelman referred to an old bill that had been prepared before the chiropractor received insurance payments. The payment was sent to a collection agency, which allegedly failed to pay the funds to the chiropractor. The chiropractor therefore sued and obtained a $3,589 default judgment against the client, despite the fact that the client had already paid $2,200 more than was owed to the chiropractor through the collection agency. The referee found that Mandelman owed $2,200 restitution to this client.

    In the third matter, Mandelman failed to provide an updated notice to Medicare on behalf of a client, failed to pay a subrogated Medicare lien and assessed interest in a timely fashion, and failed to return items to the client that he had promised to return within 24 hours, contrary to SCR 20:1.3, which requires a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness. Mandelman also failed to pay this client $100 that was left in his trust account for the client for more than four months after the client discharged him; Mandelman did not pay until two-and-a-half months after Mandelman’s law license was suspended. This conduct was contrary to SCR 20:1.15(d)(1), which requires a lawyer to deliver client funds.

    The court departed from the recommendation that the one-year suspension should be retroactive to when Mandelman was eligible for reinstatement from an earlier suspension. Citing Mandelman’s extensive disciplinary history, the court instead made the one-year suspension effective as of May 29, 2009.

    Top of Page


Join the conversation! Log in to comment.

News & Pubs Search

-
Format: MM/DD/YYYY