Public Discipline
The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR), an agency of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, provides these summaries. The OLR assists the court in supervising the practice of law and protecting 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. Find the full text of these summaries at www.wicourts.gov/olr.
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Peter J. Kovac
On July 8, 2016, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law license of Peter J. Kovac, Milwaukee, for 90 days, effective Aug. 12, 2016, for his professional misconduct relating to two client matters. The court also ordered Kovac to pay the $1,824.83 cost of the proceeding. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kovac, 2016 WI 62. The supreme court denied Kovac’s motion for reconsideration.
In the first matter, Kovac represented a client on felony criminal charges in federal court. The client paid Kovac $5,000 via credit card. Kovac discussed a total fee in the range of $15,000 to $25,000 for the representation but did not enter into a written fee agreement with the client. After the first day of trial, Kovac received an additional $2,500 payment via credit card, but the client later rescinded the payment.
The client was convicted and sentenced to a six-month term of incarceration, supervised release, and restitution. Successor counsel attempted to obtain the client’s file from Kovac, but Kovac failed to respond. Successor counsel filed a motion to compel, and the court ordered Kovac to turn over the file. Kovac then delivered the client’s file to successor counsel. Kovac failed to timely respond to the client’s grievance filed with the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR). Kovac violated SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) and (2), by failing to have a written fee agreement; SCR 20:1.16(d), by failing on termination of representation to promptly turn over the client’s file to successor counsel; and SCR 22.03(2) and SCR 22.03(6), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h), by failing to timely provide a written response to the OLR.
In the second matter, Kovac represented a client on state criminal charges. The client pleaded guilty to two drug-related charges, was found guilty, and was sentenced. Kovac did not file a notice of intent to appeal and the client filed a pro se motion to extend the time to file a notice of appeal. The client contacted Kovac on numerous occasions to obtain his file, but Kovac failed to respond. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals directed Kovac to respond to the client, but Kovac failed to comply and never delivered the file to successor counsel. Kovac did not timely respond to the OLR during its investigation of the matter.
Kovac violated SCR 20:1.3, by failing to file the notice of intent to pursue postconviction relief on the client’s behalf; SCR 20:1.16(d), by failing on termination of representation to respond to the client’s requests for the case file; SCR 20:3.4(c), by failing to respond to multiple orders that he address whether he had counseled the client about postconviction relief; and SCR 22.03(2) and SCR 22.03(6), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h), by failing to provide a timely initial response to the grievance and by failing to respond to the OLR’s request for a supplemental response.
Kovac had two prior public reprimands.
Private Discipline
The Wisconsin Supreme Court permits the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) to publish, for educational purposes, a summary of facts and professional conduct rule violations in matters in which the OLR imposed private reprimands. The summaries do not disclose information identifying the reprimanded attorneys. The summaries of selected private reprimands are printed to help attorneys avoid similar misconduct problems.
Criminal Act Reflecting Adversely on Fitness to Practice
Violation of SCR 20:8.4(b)
A lawyer was convicted in November 2015 of misdemeanor second-offense operating with a prohibited alcohol concentration (PAC) following an accident in which the lawyer was injured after striking a concrete divider. The lawyer smelled of alcohol, showed other signs of intoxication, and had a blood-alcohol content above the legal limit. The lawyer was sentenced to jail time, driver’s license revocation for 12 months, and ignition interlock device installation for 12 months. The lawyer was further ordered to undergo an alcohol assessment and pay a fine and costs.
By engaging in conduct leading to a misdemeanor conviction of operating with a PAC (second), the lawyer violated SCR 20:8.4(b).
The lawyer had no prior discipline.
Lack of Diligence; Disobeying an Obligation Under the Rules of a Tribunal
Violations of SCR 20:1.3 and SCR 20:3.4(c)
A lawyer was a co-personal representative of an estate. The decedent’s brother was the other co-personal representative of the estate.
The lawyer performed some initial work on behalf of the estate as a co-personal representative but ultimately did not close the estate in a timely manner.
In an order to show cause, the court ordered the decedent’s brother and the lawyer to appear before the court and show cause why the necessary action had not been taken to close the estate and why they should not be removed as personal representatives for the estate.
After several adjournments, the lawyer failed to appear at the order to show cause hearing. In an order removing personal representatives and appointment of successor, the judge found that no reasonable cause had been shown why the estate had not been closed and that the personal representatives were at fault in failing to close the estate. The judge ordered the lawyer and decedent’s brother removed as co-personal representatives of the estate without prejudice to any claim or liability that might exist against them arising out of any act or omission on their part during their appointment.
By failing to close the estate in a timely manner, failing to appear at an order to show cause hearing, and otherwise failing to act in furtherance of the estate’s interests, the lawyer violated SCR 20:1.3. By failing to comply with an order to show cause, the lawyer violated SCR 20:3.4(c).
The lawyer had one prior private reprimand.
Failure to Obey Court Orders
Violations of SCR 20:3.4(c)
Pursuant to a 2006 divorce judgment, a lawyer was ordered to pay child support. In 2013, the lawyer signed a stipulation regarding contempt, in which the lawyer acknowledged owing child support arrears and interest. The lawyer further stipulated that failure to pay court-ordered child support and costs was intentional and that the lawyer had an ability to pay during the time when payments were not made. The lawyer then failed to purge the contempt order.
The circuit court also found the lawyer failed to fully disclose income to the court and opposing counsel. The court eventually reduced the lawyer’s monthly child support obligation and the amount to be paid toward arrears each month.
By intentionally failing to pay court-ordered child support and costs, notwithstanding an ability to pay, the lawyer violated SCR 20:3.4(c), which states, “A lawyer shall not … knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists.”
By failing to fully disclose income to the court and opposing counsel, the lawyer further violated SCR 20:3.4(c).
The lawyer had one prior private reprimand.
Criminal Act Reflecting Adversely on Fitness to Practice
Violation of SCR 20:8.4(b)
A lawyer was convicted of misdemeanor first-offense operating while intoxicated (OWI) (with passenger under 16 years old). The criminal case against the lawyer followed a traffic stop initiated after a law enforcement agency received a complaint of the lawyer’s vehicle nearly striking a highway center divider. Law enforcement officers observed the vehicle cross the highway centerline and then drift right onto the gravel shoulder.
Once stopped, the lawyer showed signs of intoxication and failed field sobriety tests. A breath test later showed the lawyer’s blood-alcohol level to be 0.25. One empty bottle of wine and one partially empty bottle of wine were in the vehicle. The lawyer’s two minor children, then ages four and two, were passengers in the lawyer’s vehicle at the time of the traffic stop.
The lawyer’s sentence included a brief jail term with Huber privileges. The lawyer was further ordered to undergo an alcohol assessment. The lawyer, who had no prior discipline, demonstrated extremely poor judgment by driving in a state of intoxication roughly three times the legal limit, and with minor children who were not able to decide whether to be passengers in the vehicle. By engaging in the conduct leading to the criminal conviction, the lawyer violated SCR 20:8.4(b).
Revealing Client Confidences
Violation of SCR 20:1.6(a)
In response to a negative rating that a client posted on a lawyer referral and review website, the lawyer posted a response that contained information obtained during the lawyer’s representation of the client. The post contained sufficient information to determine the client’s identity using other publicly available information. The lawyer also identified the client’s daughter, who had facilitated the representation, by her unique full name and quoted emails exchanged with the client’s daughter during the representation.
The response exceeded what was necessary to respond to the client’s review and the lawyer should have known that revelation of the information would be embarrassing to the client and to the client’s daughter. At the client’s request, the lawyer removed the daughter’s name from the post approximately one week later. Ten months later the lawyer removed the quoted emails from the post.
By revealing client confidences in a public forum, the lawyer violated SCR 20:1.6(a), which provides: “A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, except for disclosures that are impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation, and except as stated in pars. (b) and (c).” The exceptions in paragraphs (b) and (c) did not apply, including the exceptions allowing lawyers to reveal client information to establish a defense in a civil, criminal, disciplinary, or other proceeding. The permitted exceptions do not include defending one’s professional reputation.
The lawyer had prior private and public discipline, including a short-term suspension.
Criminal Act Reflecting Adversely on Fitness to Practice
Violation of SCR 20:8.4(b)
A lawyer received an OWI conviction in Michigan in September 2015, based on a July 2015 traffic stop made after law enforcement officers observed the lawyer’s vehicle drifting in its lane of travel. The lawyer exhibited signs of intoxication, failed all field sobriety evaluations that the lawyer attempted, and had a blood-alcohol content above the legal limit. The operating with a high blood-alcohol content charge was dismissed with prejudice. The lawyer was placed on two years’ probation and ordered to pay a fine, costs, and fees.
The lawyer’s Michigan conviction in September 2015 is similar to a Wisconsin OWI (second) conviction, because it occurred within 10 years after the lawyer’s prior OWI conviction. The OLR has regularly sought and obtained discipline for lawyers convicted of OWI (second) and above in Wisconsin.
By engaging in conduct leading to a misdemeanor conviction of OWI in Michigan, which was equivalent to a misdemeanor conviction of OWI (second) if occurring in Wisconsin, the lawyer violated SCR 20:8.4(b). The lawyer had no prior discipline.
Failing to Supervise; Misleading Letterhead
Violations of SCR 20:5.3(b), SCR 20:7.1, and SCR 20:7.5(a) and (d)
A lawyer represented a woman in drafting her will and later, after she passed away in 2010, represented her estate. The lawyer’s administrative assistant handled the finances for the estate. In 2012 it was discovered that the administrative assistant had embezzled more than $400,000 from the woman’s estate and two other estates. The administrative assistant also failed to file tax returns for the woman’s estate.
The lawyer had an office-sharing arrangement with two other lawyers. The three lawyers were not partners or otherwise owners of a law firm and, instead, maintained separate independent practices. Between 2009 and 2012, the lawyer used pre-printed letterhead with the heading “[Lawyer Name] Law Office” at the top of the page, with the names of all three lawyers directly below and to the left of the heading. The lawyer sent letters using such letterhead, misleading some people to believe the lawyers were members of the same law firm.
By failing to properly supervise the nonlawyer assistant’s access to and handling of funds belonging to clients, resulting in the nonlawyer assistant’s theft of more than $400,000 from three estate clients, and by failing to ensure that the nonlawyer assistant completed tasks necessary to close the client’s estate, including the timely filing of tax returns, the lawyer violated SCR 20:5.3(b).
Between 2009 and 2012, by sending letters using professional letterhead that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the three lawyers were members of a law firm together, when in fact each of the three lawyers maintained separate and independent practices, the lawyer violated SCR 20:7.1 and SCR 20:7.5(a) and (d).
The lawyer had no prior discipline.
Failing to Hold Funds in Trust; Causing a Negative Balance in Ledger; Making Cash Withdrawals; Failing to Maintain and Produce Records
Violations of SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) and former SCR 20:1.15 (e)(4)a., (e)(7), (f)(1)b., and (f)(1)d. and e.1. (effective before July 1, 2016)
A lawyer represented a client regarding alleged civil rights violations and deposited $4,985.87 from the client to the trust account. The lawyer made a number of disbursements from those funds, overdrawing the client’s balance by $106.66. Funds belonging to another client covered the shortfall. Several months later, the client told the lawyer that a $300 check the lawyer gave him was destroyed. The lawyer withdrew $350 from the trust account for the client, increasing the client’s negative balance to $456.66. By making disbursements causing negative balances in this client’s ledger and failing to hold another client’s funds in trust, the lawyer violated former SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)b.
During the OLR’s investigation of this matter, the lawyer failed to produce trust account records, in violation of former SCR 20:1.15(e)(7). The records the OLR obtained by subpoena were evidence that the lawyer had not maintained required records, in violation of former SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)d. and e.1. In addition, the lawyer made cash withdrawals totaling $3,382.54 from the trust account, in violation of former SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)a.
The lawyer represented another client in a legal malpractice matter and disbursed $300 to the law firm before depositing related funds to the trust account. Because funds belonging to another client covered the shortfall, the lawyer failed to hold a client’s funds in trust, in violation of SCR 20:1.15(b)(1). The lawyer later disbursed an additional $300 for legal fees. An overdraft on the trust account followed, depleting this client’s balance. The lawyer refunded $300 to the client from the law firm’s business account.
The lawyer had no prior discipline.
Failing to Hold Funds in Trust; Causing Negative Balances in Ledgers; Failing to Maintain Trust Account Records; Falsely Certifying Maintenance of Records
Violations of SCR 20:1.15(b)(1), and former SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)a., b. and g., and (i)(4) (effective before July 1, 2016)
A lawyer received $30,000 in fees and costs to defend a client on federal criminal charges and placed the funds in the firm’s trust account. The lawyer thereafter disbursed $34,938 from the trust account relating to this matter, which led to a $732.08 overdraft.
The lawyer did not maintain trust account records before the overdraft, in violation of former SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)a., b. and g. However, after the overdraft, the lawyer reconstructed the records from bank statements. The reconstructed records showed negative balances for five clients, indicating that the lawyer disbursed $6,749 more than what was in trust for those clients, in violation of former SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)b. In addition, the records showed that by disbursing that $6,749, the lawyer failed to hold in trust $6,229 belonging to 15 other clients, in violation of SCR 20:1.15(b)(1). The bulk of the $6,229 consisted of fees that had been earned but not billed, and no dishonesty was found.
Finally, the lawyer certified in the 2015 Trust Account/WisTAF Certificate that the required records were being maintained when they were not, in violation of former SCR 20:1.15(i)(4).
The lawyer had no prior discipline and voluntarily attended an OLR trust account seminar.
Trust Accounts and Fees
Violations of former SCR 20:1.15(b)(4) and (e)(4)h. (effective before July 1, 2016), SCR 20:1.5(b)(3), and SCR 20:1.16(d)
A lawyer agreed to represent a client in a criminal matter. The client’s parents paid the lawyer an advanced fee of $6,000, all of which was paid via a credit card. The lawyer deposited the advanced fees into his operating account and not a credit card trust account. By failing to deposit advanced fees into a client trust account and by failing to deposit advanced fees received by credit card into a credit card trust account, the lawyer violated former SCR 20:1.15(b)(4) and (e)(4)h. (effective before July 1, 2016).
Subsequently, the client’s parents informed the lawyer that they had hired new counsel, and they requested a refund of any unearned fees. The parents made several additional requests to the lawyer requesting a refund. The lawyer did not respond to the parents’ inquiries nor did the lawyer respond initially to successor counsel’s written demand for a refund of unearned fees. Following an additional written demand from successor counsel (on behalf of the client) seeking a refund of unearned fees and an accounting, the lawyer promised to provide an accounting and a refund within one week, but did not do so. Eight months passed before the lawyer provided an accounting and a refund to the client’s parents.
By failing to respond promptly to a client’s request for information concerning fees, the lawyer violated SCR 20:1.5(b)(3). By failing to refund unearned fees until eight months after termination of the representation, the lawyer violated SCR 20:1.16(d).
The lawyer had no prior discipline.
Lack of Diligence; Failure to Promptly Deliver Property to a Third Party; Failure to Cooperate
Violations of SCR 20:1.3, SCR 20:1.15(d)(1), and SCR 22.03(2) and (6), via SCR 20:8.4(h)
A lawyer engaged in misconduct in two matters. The first involved a sale of property by land contract from two family members to another family member. The vendee hired the lawyer to complete paperwork necessary to the transaction. The vendee subsequently provided the lawyer with an earnest money check for $5,000, payable to the land contract vendors. The vendee asked that the work be accomplished as soon as possible. Approximately 15 months elapsed before the lawyer completed the land contract paperwork. The vendee took care of the recording himself. By delaying completion of the paperwork, the lawyer violated SCR 20:1.3.
The lawyer held the earnest money check for approximately six months without delivery, a task also accomplished by the vendee. By failing to promptly deliver the funds to the vendors, the lawyer violated former SCR 20:1.15(d)(1) (effective before July 1, 2016).
The second matter involved an allegation that the lawyer unnecessarily delayed tax work on behalf of a client. While the evidence ultimately would not support the allegation relating to the tax work, the lawyer did not respond to the OLR until after the supreme court issued the lawyer an order to show cause pursuant to SCR 22.03(4). By willfully failing to timely respond to the OLR, the lawyer violated SCR 22.03(2) and SCR 22.03(6), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h).
The lawyer received a private reprimand in 1988.
Conduct Involving Dishonesty; Misrepresentation to OLR
Violation of SCR 20:8.4(c)
A public adjusting company, pursuant to a contract signed by the lawyer’s spouse, assisted a lawyer in resolving a personal claim made under the lawyer’s homeowner’s insurance policy. The adjusting company worked with the insurer to reach a settlement of the lawyer’s claim. The insurer issued joint-payee checks in payment of various components of the claim. The lawyer deposited the checks without the adjusting company’s endorsement.
The lawyer alleged to the OLR that the insurer suggested this course of action when the lawyer objected to the inclusion of the adjusting company as a payee on the checks. The insurer had not suggested that the lawyer deposit the checks without the proper endorsement and had informed the lawyer it would not issue reimbursement checks without the adjusting company as a payee. The lawyer further alleged to the OLR that the adjusting company did no work on the claim when this was not true. By depositing joint-payee checks without obtaining the adjusting company’s endorsement, despite knowing that the adjusting company claimed an interest in the funds, the lawyer engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c). By making misrepresentations to the OLR during its investigation, the lawyer violated SCR 22.03(6), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h).
The lawyer had no prior discipline.
Reciprocal Discipline: Failure to Communicate; Failure to Safely Keep Property; Failure to Timely Refund Advance Payment of Fee; Failure to Respond to Disciplinary Authority
The Arizona Supreme Court admonished a lawyer for misconduct. The lawyer had been retained to handle a family law matter in Arizona. Thereafter, the lawyer failed to act diligently and to reasonably communicate with the client. The client asked the lawyer to cease working on the matter and requested a full accounting of fees, a return of unearned fees, and a copy of the client’s file. The lawyer did not provide a full refund to the client until seven months later.
The Arizona State Bar requested twice that the lawyer respond to a grievance filed by the client. The lawyer failed to respond. The lawyer was admonished by the Arizona Supreme Court for violating Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 42 (rules 1.4 (communication), 1.15 (safekeeping property), and 1.16 (terminating representation)), and Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 54(d)(failure to respond to disciplinary authority).
The lawyer was privately reprimanded in Wisconsin as reciprocal discipline under SCR 22.22(2).
Criminal Act (OWI Second) Reflecting Adversely on Fitness to Practice
Violation of SCR 20:8.4(b)
A lawyer was convicted in April 2016 of misdemeanor second-offense OWI after a multiple-vehicle accident caused by the lawyer striking a parked car. The lawyer exhibited signs of intoxication, failed field sobriety tests, and was arrested for OWI. A chemical test of the lawyer’s breath taken within three hours after the accident registered at 0.26 g/210L.
The lawyer’s sentence included 45 days in jail with Huber privileges, driver’s license revocation for 16 months, and ignition interlock device installation for two years. The lawyer was further ordered to undergo an alcohol assessment and pay a fine.
By engaging in conduct leading to a conviction of OWI (second), the lawyer violated SCR 20:8.4(b).
The lawyer had no prior discipline.
